Ratg0FwE

1THE FIRST
2
3CIVILIZATION
4
5by Jas Garcha
6
7©Copyright 2012 Jaspreet S. Garcha. This work may be duplicated and distributed for educational and informational purposes only. Any unauthorized distribution for commercial purposes or monetary gain is in violation of the copyright.
8Correspondence email address: thefirstcivilization@gmail.com
91
10
11Prologue
12
13“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
14-R. Buckminster Fuller (1)
15There is a certain model that pervades virtually every aspect of our lives. It affects the way humans behave and interact with each other, determines which humans wear diamonds on their fingers and which ones dig for diamonds in the dirt, and even plays a strong hand in determining who lives and who dies. The model I speak of is human society. Our political, economic, and social systems combine to create a very peculiar model for our global society. In our current model, it's possible for one continent to face an obesity epidemic while another continent faces mass starvation. Resources that could be used to improve human lives and alleviate suffering are instead turned into weapons with which to end human lives and encourage suffering. A highly adaptable and intelligent species, capable of mastering complex technologies and surviving in virtually any environment, has become its own greatest threat to survival. Our global society seems to be a fantastic model for inefficiency, needless destruction, and the complete absence of logic and reason.
16In keeping with the advice of Mr. Fuller, the purpose of this book is to display to the world a new potential model for human society. In this new model, we take full advantage of our scientific and technical prowess to free humans from mundane labour tasks and create an abundance of goods and services. We rid ourselves of obsolete constructs such as money, national borders, governments, and all other forms of oppressive control. This is a system that recognizes the inescapable interconnection of every organism on the planet, and sees that the suffering of one human invariably leads to the suffering of other humans, and the deterioration of society as a whole. And finally, this is a system in which actions are determined not by the amount of shiny coins that must be arbitrarily traded for their completion, but by the availability of the Earth's resources. This model is called a Resource Based Economy (RBE). (2)
17An RBE is system unlike any socioeconomic system that has been employed in history, in that it was not designed by consulting traditional beliefs or ancient philosophies. Instead, this model was conceived by using the most powerful tool in the history of human thought: Science. In this system, we attempt to address the problems facing society by considering evidence and making choices based on logic and scientifically supported ideas. Using scientific thought, we can treat society's problems as technical issues, to be solved the same way that we troubleshoot a malfunctioning computer, or attempt to repair a car. If an idea conflicts with the evidence, it must be reevaluated and revised to be in better accord with reality. Unfortunately, contemporary society has, in a depressingly large number of ways, completely separated itself from reality. So, as you read this book, you will almost certainly come
18across claims and theories that seem to spit in the face of common sense, but which are actually backed up by our scientific understanding.
19Not surprisingly, we'll start things off with a quick science lesson. This book begins with an introductory chapter on human behaviour, and the way the environment in which we live and grow has a profound affect on our development. It is of critical importance that we understand this concept before delving into the details of an RBE, since many of the ideas we'll encounter on our journey seem
20counter-intuitive and contrary to common experience. Having an understanding of the link between our behaviour and the environment will therefore prevent a lot of of unnecessary confusion. One could easily write an entire book on this subject, but for our purposes, I will simply highlight a few examples and behaviours that are particularly important to address. Once we are equipped with this basic
212
22knowledge, we'll head into the main body of this book. At this point, you'll also understand why I have chosen the title “The First Civilization”.
23Section One is a thorough, in depth look at a potential configuration for a Resource Based Economy. We'll discuss the specific technologies that could be used to make such a system possible and how they would be utilized for our benefit. We'll also talk about the ins and outs of managing a system without money, governments or any other form of coercive control. The main point of this section is to provide you with a solid understanding of how this kind of system might work. That being said, you'll probably find yourself with more questions than answers.
24This is where Section Two comes in. In this section, we will go over questions, concerns, objections and complaints that have been brought up in response to the RBE idea. Specifically, we'll go over such issues as how to deal with unlimited human wants, fears of a New World Order, the Economic Calculation Problem, issues relating to Artificial Intelligence, comparisons to Socialism, overpopulation, and many others. By doing so, we'll further see the logical strength of this theoretical system. Of course, we must keep in mind at all times that this system is, as of right now, still entirely theoretical. No matter how much evidence and logic we have in favour of this idea, it ultimately does
25us little good unless the idea can be thoroughly tested, and its merits can be observed and measured.
26Enter Section Three. Here, we will go through an example of a step by step protocol that could be used to test an RBE. In keeping with our general theme of scientific thought, this plan takes the form of a series of scientific experiments. In addition to providing us with a way to test the RBE concept, it would also serve as a very interesting experiment in human behaviour and health; we could learn just how much of a negative impact our current system is having on the physical and mental health of our species. The primary purpose of this plan is to create an example community that is based upon the principles of an RBE, and use this as a platform to push for further (ideally, global) implementation of this new system.
27As you read this book, keep in mind that my purpose is not to create an absolute, immutable instruction manual for this system, or to make any absolute claims about what the future should look like. Rather, I simply wish to provide one possible example of what the future could look like. My goal is to show that a system as seemingly fantastic and idealistic as an RBE is not only technically possible, but is fully within our grasp to create and would have a high probability of success. In addition, I fully expect that every specific idea I put forth in this book will eventually be superseded by better ideas and superior technologies. In fact, I sincerely hope that this will occur. The quality that truly separates science from all other methods of thought is that science accepts nothing as an absolute truth. Ideas continually evolve and improve, so you should expect that even as you are reading this book, many of the specific technologies I mention will have already been rendered obsolete. But worry not, for the specifics are not nearly as critical to the success of our species as the general understandings we will gain from this thought experiment.
28One final point I will mention before we begin our trip is this: Question every word that I say in this book. After all, I'm literally just some random guy, and there's absolutely no reason you have to believe a single thing that I say. For that reason, I've filled this book with references to other works by experts in their fields, and I've applied my own logic and reasoning to the ideas and concepts in these works, in order to give you a comprehensive argument for an RBE. I would encourage you to employ your own sense of logic as you read on, to ensure sure that the evidence I offer and the logic I use is actually sound. I didn't write this book to give you answers, but to give you new questions to contemplate. Let's begin, shall we?
293
30
31Table of Contents
32
33Prologue 2
34
35Introduction 5
36
37Section One: How to Make a Civilization 11
38
39Section Two: Questions? Concerns? 33
40
41Section Three: This is the Test 57
42
43Epilogue 68
44
45Citations by Section 71
46
474
48
49Introduction
50
51“In our tenure of this planet, we have accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage - propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders - all of which puts our survival in some doubt. We have also acquired compassion for others, love for our children, a
52desire to learn from history and experience, and a great, soaring, passionate intelligence - the clear tools for our continued survival and prosperity.”
53-Carl Sagan (1)
54
55Human Behaviour and the Environment
56
57If we were to walk out into the wilderness and observe the behaviour of wild animals, what would we see? In all likelihood, we would witness brutal competition and intense violence. This is because animals live in an environment of scarcity. They are forced to compete and fight with each other because there are simply not enough resources for everyone. Instead, resources go to whichever organisms are the most well adapted to obtaining them. This is the basis for evolution by natural selection, as first postulated by Charles Darwin (2). This is also the reason that life in the wild is so harsh; unless an organism is willing to fight for it's life, it will probably end up losing it.
58Given this reality, it's not surprising that so many people believe that these same traits define human behaviour. We observe the violent savagery of animals in the wild, and we simply assume that this is exactly how humans would behave if there were no societal pressures forcing us to work and live together. But is this assumption actually true? In order to find out, we'll need to explore some basic principles of genetics. And, like many things in science, it all starts with an equation. Before we dive into it, let's define the terms that make up this equation.
59
60Genotype: This is the word that describes the specific set of genes that you have inherited from your parents, which make up your unique DNA. In other words, your genotype is like a blueprint or set of instructions that describes how to construct a 'you'.
61
62Phenotype: This is a description of the physical traits and behaviours that you currently display. In essence, this term describes you as the unique organism that you are, whereas as genotype refers specifically to your unique set of DNA. Obviously, there is some link between the two terms. That link is the third and final term in our equation.
63
64Environment: This is, to put it bluntly, everything that is not you, but which might have an effect on you. This includes the type of climate you live in, the food you eat, the job you work at, the people you spend time with, the television shows you watch, the amount of sunlight you get, your physical activity levels, and so on. But how does the environment relate to the first two terms? Well, it goes a little something like this:
65
66Genotype + Environment = Phenotype
67What exactly does this equation mean? In short, you are born with a huge number of genes,
68most of which contribute to your survival in certain situations. However, some genes are more useful in certain situations than others. For example, the genes involved in growing your hands when you are a fetus are not very useful when you are an adult. This is where environment comes into the equation. Your body constantly senses the information coming in from the environment. This, in turn, causes changes within the cells that make up your body. These changes actually signal certain genes to turn on, and other genes to turn off. This is why genotype and phenotype are not identical; just because you
695
70have the genes for a certain trait, there is no guarantee that trait will manifest if the environment does not encourage it. (3)
71Another way to think about it is to imagine that your DNA is like a menu at a restaurant. Each item on the menu is like one of your genes, and the environment is like a person choosing their meal; depending on what is preferred, some items will be ordered, and others will not. The meal that is created in the end is like your phenotype. The important thing to remember is this: Your genes alone
72
73do not define who you are or how you will turn out. Our genes interact with the environment in order to determine our phenotype. This means that all of the things I listed above - where you live, the people you are surrounded by, the quality of your diet, this book that you are reading - have the very real
74
75ability to affect the expression of your genes (which ones will be turned on, and which will be turned off), and they are doing so right now. This relationship between genes and the environment has been given the extraordinarily creative title of 'Gene-Environment Interactions' (abbreviated as GxE). But how does GxE relate to human behaviour?
76The genes involved in our behaviour are much like any other genes; depending on the environment present, certain genes will be expressed while others will not, which can cause notable changes in an individual's behaviour. For example, a study examining a specific gene involved in aggression and violent behaviour showed that a certain environmental trigger was required for this gene to have any noticeable effect on behavioural phenotype. Individuals who inherited this gene did not display any more violent or aggressive behaviour than the general population under normal circumstances. However, those who were subject to abuse as children were significantly more likely to be aggressive and display violent behaviour, regardless of whether or not they inherited this gene. In that case, those who did have the gene showed the highest levels of violence and aggression. (4)
77So what do we learn from the above case? As it turns out, the idea that humans are 'naturally' violent and aggressive could be considered true, in that we are all born with the capacity for violence. However, this capacity does not simply manifest itself for no reason, regardless of an individual's genetic makeup. Instead, violent behaviour seems to be a response to a violent environment. The individuals who possess this specific gene can be thought of as being particularly well adapted to a violent environment, but this clearly does not result in violence unless there is a sufficiently traumatizing environmental trigger (in this case, child abuse). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if one were to exist in an environment that was completely non-violent, where traumatizing experiences like child abuse would not occur, we should see little (if not zero) violent behaviour of any kind, regardless of what a particular human is genetically 'programmed' for. Unfortunately, the effects of a traumatizing environment don't end with violence and aggression.
78Another study by this group involved a gene associated with depression, and yielded similar results. Possession of the gene alone had little effect on an individual's susceptibility to depression. However, those people who had experienced a sufficient number of very stressful life events were much more likely to experience depression or to have suicidal thoughts, with more stressful events correlating with greater likelihood of depression. Once again, this effect occurred regardless of one's genotype, but those possessing the gene had a higher chance of falling prey to the environmental influence than those who did not, showing the greatest probability of experiencing depression and thoughts of suicide as a result of stressful life experiences. (5)
79My point in bringing up these examples is that we should not be so eager blame individuals or
80'human nature' for the variety of violent behaviours and mental illnesses (such as depression) which are so prevalent in our society. Unless we are willing to closely examine the environmental conditions in which these types of behaviours develop, we cannot honestly say that we understand them. Of course, you might think that I am simply absolving individuals of their responsibility, and attempting to 'blame society' for the choices people make. After all, aren't the choices that we make as individuals
816
82important? Of course they are, particularly as our choices are incredibly effective at shaping our environments. However, we need to keep in mind that our choices are ultimately a product of - and often, limited by – that very same environment.
83For example, if a family lives in an impoverished village in a developing country, where they are simply unable to generate enough income to provide basic necessities for themselves, what options remain? Essentially, their choices are limited to starvation and subsequent death, or stealing food from someone else. Should we be surprised to see such high crime rates in areas afflicted with poverty and unemployment (6)? Almost certainly not. Let's apply this same logic to developed countries: How can children avoid a life of violence and crime when they are constantly exposed to gang violence? How
84can we expect an impoverished youth to avoid criminal activity, when a child grows up seeing all of the wealth and affluence in the hands of criminals, while their law-abiding parents struggle to provide them with even the basic necessities of life? Once again, there are a variety of choices that could potentially be made, but those choices involving violence and crime seem to be the most highly rewarded. Therefore, if we plan on creating a society free of violence and crime, it would of the utmost
85importance to ensure that we create a system in which violence and crime are not actively rewarded behaviours, as they are today.
86We need to remember that the single most important factor in determining evolutionary success is adaptability (7). Our species has risen to dominance on this planet because we are the best at adapting to whatever situation is presented to us. Give us an environment in which violence is
87prevalent and crime pays, and our species will do what it does best: adapt to the environment, and display whichever behaviours will encourage our survival.
88So, we now know that the behaviours we often think of as being 'criminal' are due in large part to the existence of environments in which these behaviours are actively encouraged to flourish. However, there are still other 'non-criminal' behaviours that require addressing. Perhaps one of the most important of these is laziness. We have a tendency to think that without the motivating factor of money, which forces us to work in order to to survive, that people would 'naturally' become extremely lazy and unproductive. But is this assertion actually true? As it turns out, much of the evidence seems to suggest the opposite; that the primary cause of laziness is the fact that we are forced to work.
89There are specific types of jobs that actually encourage people to be lazy. An individual working at a job in which they have little control over their actions, a job in which activities are passive and require little mental activity, or a job which causes a high amount of mental strain, are all causes of laziness. This somewhat surprising link has two major explanations: One is that long-term stress, which is closely linked to one's job, causes an organism to reduce it's activity levels and become lazier (8).
90The other reason refers specifically to the case of passive and low control jobs. A job in which there is little physical and mental activity causes the individual to adopt a similar type of lifestyle outside of work. Laziness is prevalent because of the stress we experience from our jobs, and the general lack of fulfilling activity that is inherent is some types of jobs (8,9,10). On the other hand, activities and occupations that require creativity, and which encourage physical and mental activity without being overly stressful seem to have no link to laziness (10).
91It turns out that not only do many jobs actively encourage laziness, but that money itself is only a motivating factor for these kinds of jobs. Money will have positive effects on work and productivity
92if the action being performed requires no creative thinking or very little mental effort. However, if the activity being performed involves creativity and self-expression, then money has virtually no motivating effect whatsoever. Instead, the act of creation itself is the motivation; people genuinely
93enjoy exercising their creativity and mastering complex skills, and seem to require no outside influence in order to do so. This is a particularly important point to remember: money is only a motivating factor for mindless and uncreative activities, and these types of jobs are also the major cause of laziness. (11)
947
95Of course, one other reason people so often stress the importance of work is because one must always remain competitive. We live in a global competition-based society, where everyone is
96constantly forced to compete with everyone else for jobs, money, and various intangibles such as social status. I wonder how this might affect our behaviour? In order to understand, we first need to understand a bit more about what makes us act competitively; and just as important, what makes us sometimes behave in the opposite manner, and act cooperatively.
97So, why do humans act competitively? As I've already mentioned, competition is the basis for evolution by natural selection (2). Therefore, it is no stretch to assume that humans have evolved with a capacity for competitive behaviour. However, our species often exhibits another type of behaviour: cooperation. Humans may not be the only species to act cooperatively and exhibit altruism, but the
98level of cooperation has risen to truly amazing levels in our species (12). But if evolution is driven by competition, where did these cooperative behaviours come from? After all, an act of altruism means that an organism voluntarily reduces it's own fitness while simultaneously improving the survivability of a potential competitor. Did we, in fact, evolve to be cooperative? Is cooperation a cultural construct? As you might expect, the real answer is a little bit of both.
99There are several theories that attempt to explain how cooperative behaviours might have evolved in Earth's animals. The theory of reciprocal altruism suggests that an organism will go out of it's way to aid another member of it's group, even if this act might compromise the survivability of the helpful organism. This is done with the expectation that the favour will eventually be returned, thus
100both organisms will eventually benefit from the relationship (13). The theory of kin selection states that we have evolved a drive to give help to our direct and extended families; those organisms whose genes are the most similar to ours. This is done in order to ensure that our general set of genes are passed on, even if it is a family member who actually survives to do the passing, rather than us (14). Handicap theory suggests that altruism and cooperation are just more additions to the long list of behaviours developed in order to make us appear more attractive to the opposite sex. In the same way that a
101healthy male peacock is able to squander valuable nutrients on it's elaborate tail, thus displaying how
102'wealthy' the peacock is in nutrients, so too might a human go out of their way to assist someone, simply to show that they are successful enough to do so. Essentially, an organism will 'handicap' itself in some way in order to show how sexually desirable it is (15).
103It's likely that the evolution of cooperation was due to a combination of these mechanisms. Each theory has some evidence in its favour, but none of them alone are sufficient enough to completely explain the extreme collaborative behaviours found in human society. It's more likely that the type of collaborations seen in our species are due not only to an evolutionary drive to cooperate, but also from cultural need. For the vast, vast majority of human history, we did not have the complex, competition- based societies we see today. Instead, humans were organized into small hunter-gatherer tribes, who survived by moving from place to place, foraging for food and occasionally hunting. In such an organizational structure, it would be critical for the members of a group to be able to cooperate with each other in order to ensure the survival of the tribe. Cooperation within the tribe would also have
104been necessary to defend against occasional inter-group violence, where a tribe might be forced into direct (and bloody) competition with other tribes. As we might expect, there is evidence to suggest that periods of inter-tribal violence were highest during times when resources were scarce, thus increasingly forcing tribes to compete with each other. In such situations, cooperation within the group would have been vital to ensure the survival of both the individual organism, and the group as a whole. Those groups who lacked the ability to cooperate amongst themselves would have been much less likely to survive. (16)
105We can clearly see that there are both evolutionary and cultural pressures that shape our competitive and cooperative behaviours. This is further demonstrated by studies that examine the
1068
107relationships between competition, cooperation, and the society we live in. It has been shown that the tendency of a human to behave competitively or cooperatively actually varies depending on the type of economic situation at hand. In a competitive economic system, competition and selfishness tend to be the dominant behaviours; in a cooperative system, cooperation and fairness tend to be more dominant (17). Likewise, studies have shown that children associate greater self-esteem with whichever type of behaviour is the dominant one in their culture. They associate competition with greater self-esteem in competitive societies, and they associate cooperation with greater self-esteem in cooperative societies. (18)
108Just as with other kinds of behaviours, one could say that humans are 'naturally' competitive, as well as being 'naturally' cooperative, in that we are born with the capacity for either type of behaviour. Once again, we humans demonstrate our powerful adaptive abilities by displaying whichever behaviour is required for our survival. It is also interesting to note that cooperation is generally a far more productive type of behaviour than competition, as cooperation tends to result in tasks being completed with significantly higher quality, as well as inspiring greater innovation and creativity (19,20,21). Alternatively, competitive opponents have a tendency to waste a large amount of potential progress on attempting to thwart each other, with less progress being made on either side than if they had
109cooperated (22). There is, however, one aspect in which competition tends to outshine cooperation, and that is speed. When groups are in competition with each other, tasks tend to be performed much quicker than if they had cooperated (19). In short, if you want a job done quickly, you should encourage competition. If you want a job done well, you should encourage cooperation.
110I'll take this time to point out the fact that one of the main arguments in favour of competitive systems like Capitalism, is that competition supposedly results in greater innovation and productivity, which is, in reality, the exact opposite of what research shows. Just thought I'd mention that.
111I should also mention that one of the major effects of living in a competitive environment is long term stress. There is evidence that the stress caused by our constant need to 'keep up' in a competitive society can wreak absolute havoc on our health (23). This is because stress results in the elevation of the hormone cortisol. Long term elevation of cortisol is associated with increased blood sugar, insulin resistance, loss of muscle mass, loss of bone density, increased abdominal fat storage, decreased immune function, and a whole host of other delightfully debilitating effects (24). This phenomenon can clearly be seen in people who work at jobs which involve (surprise, surprise) low perceived control, or with little opportunity for the mastery of skills. These individuals not only have constantly elevated cortisol compared to those working jobs they actually enjoy, but they also have much slower clearance of excess cortisol from their bloodstream following a stressful event (25). Unfortunately, this means that if you have a job you hate, it's not just ruining your day; it's actually directly killing you, and from multiple angles.
112If that's not bad enough, there is also the effect that stress has on infants. We have to keep in mind that the environment is not just what we experience after we are born; the information a fetus receives from its mother forms an incredibly crucial aspect of that individual's environment (26). A chronically stressed out pregnant mother will actually give birth to a child that is tuned to a high stress environment. These children will have elevated levels of cortisol for their entire lives (27). Unfortunately, in order to remain financially competitive in our society, pregnant mothers will often continue working well into their pregnancy, which increases the likelihood that this kind of event will occur.
113Of course, a competitive environment does not just cripple our children before they are born, but continues to do so right through their childhood and into their adult years. Evaluation systems that are based on competition and hierarchies, such as the almost universal policy of assigning 'grades' in education systems around the world, have been shown to actively discourage kids from learning.
1149
115Instead of inspiring students to work towards achieving their highest potential, they are instead compelled to do the minimum amount of work required to avoid 'failure' (28).
116In summary, a competitive environment will encourage competitive behaviour, which results in less productivity, higher stress, and a tendency to exert the least amount of effort possible to avoid
117'losing' or 'failing'. And now, we go full circle back to the first point I mentioned. In nature, competition is everywhere. Animals must constantly compete with each other for scarce resources and mates. In modern society, this has clearly not changed. Humans must constantly compete with each other for scarce money and social status. Despite having dressed it up with dollar signs and advertisements, today's society is virtually identical in principle to the animal world. Our socioeconomic system emulates the harsh scarcity of nature, which forces us to express primitive behaviours such as competitiveness and violence in order to survive, exactly as it would be if we were still living in the wild. In what sense, then, have we actually created a real civilization? We've certainly created societies, but then, so have chimpanzees (29). To actually call what we have now a civilization is, in my opinion, extremely shortsighted and completely illogical.
118Instead, I think it is more accurate to say that all of recorded human history thus far has actually been an intermediate phase, representing a major evolutionary transition. This transition is transforming us from the primitive hunter-gatherer species we've been for the vast majority of our time on Earth, into the first truly intelligent civilization to exist on this planet. As of my writing this, it is the year 2012 CE, and it seems that we might be nearing the end of this transition. We are now poised to create a society
119in which the harsh scarcity of nature no longer rules our lives; a society in which primitive notions of violence and competition will become the exception rather than the rule. And most importantly, we can finally create a society in which the needs of every human are met, and all people are able to live in freedom and exercise their creativity. We are now finally able to create something that can truly be called a 'civilization'. The next step in human evolution is about to begin.
120What an interesting time to be alive.
121
122Section One: How to Make a Civilization
123
12410
125“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
126-Albert Einstein (1)
127
128A Resource Based Economy: The Big Picture
129
130The concept of a Resource Based Economy (or RBE for short) was developed over a lifetime by social engineer Jacque Fresco. The basic idea of an RBE is in the name; whereas today's economic systems are based on the management of fancy pieces of paper with dead peoples' faces on them (also known as 'money'), an RBE is based on the management of the planet's resources (also known as 'the stuff we need to avoid dying') with as much efficiency as possible. This system also differs from
131today's economic systems in its overall goal. While the goal of a Capitalist system is to continually increase the consumption of resources in order to ensure that the economy 'grows' (despite the fact that this is literally impossible to sustain forever), the goal of an RBE is to provide for the needs of every human. In other words, an individual does not need to earn their right to exist by submitting to the stress-inducing slavery of forced labour. Instead, each person is simply given what they need to survive. There would not be any form of currency or debt of any kind, which would result in a very powerful shift in priorities: we would no longer be hindered by the profit motive, in which economics often stands in the way of logic. (2)
132Currently, we fight the efficiency of automation because humans need those jobs to make money. We fight sustainable energy sources that wouldn't pollute our planet, because our economy runs on fossil fuels such as oil. And this, of course, means that despite the fact that we will eventually run
133out of oil , we must continually accelerate our use of it in order to ensure that our economy keeps
134'growing'. Without the confines of our current system, all of this thinking becomes obsolete. We would embrace automation because it frees us from unwanted labour tasks, and has the potential to create better products with greater efficiency. We would embrace sustainable energy sources for our physical health and the health of our planet, in addition to the vastly higher potential for energy it gives us. This means that we would no longer need to burn through nonrenewable resources at mind boggling rates, and could instead attempt to minimize their use and maximize efficiency. Finally, a major difference between an RBE and today's economic systems is the role of governments, laws, and national borders; none of these things would exist. In an RBE, there would be no need to submit to a government or ruling class of any kind, laws and other restrictions on personal freedom would become largely unnecessary, and the arbitrary borders that isolate us would be done away with, since they provide absolutely nothing but pointless separation.(2)
135Now, how in the world would that work?!
136
137Connecting the Dots
138
139The easiest way to understand an RBE is to simply dive right in and start explaining every facet from the ground up. By the end of this section, you should have a solid understanding of how this system might work, including the conundrum of how to make a society function without laws, governments, or money. I should stress that this outline is in no way 'official'. This is simply my interpretation of the RBE idea, attempting to fill in as many blanks as I can. Most of the general ideas are pulled straight from the mind of Jacque Fresco, but I have combined his overviews with specific ideas of my own, in order to create my version of a blueprint for this economic system. By the time this
14011
141system is actually undergoing any kind of implementation, many (if not all) of the specifics I mention here will likely have been replaced with superior ideas from technical experts in the requisite fields. All I'm trying to do here is give a detailed example of what an RBE model might look like, in order to show that this system is technically possible. In other words, consider this model to be a prototype; when the real thing is implemented, it will likely be a far superior system to what I have outlined here.
142
143Energy
144
145No matter how well designed a society is, it's not very likely to function without some method of generating energy. Currently, our primary method of energy generation is to dig dead plants and animals out of the ground, and then burn them. Although this method is fairly primitive, it nonetheless generates a surprisingly high amount of energy, along with a high amount of environmental destruction and personal health deterioration (3). Despite these drawbacks, our global economic system relies so heavily on the use of fossil fuels that we must consistently throw sustainable alternatives to the side in order to maintain employment levels and economic growth. Since there is no reason to worry about employment or economic growth in an RBE, there would be no reason to cling to these unsustainable and biologically harmful energy sources. Instead, we would turn to the myriad of incredibly powerful sustainable energy sources that produce little or no environmental destruction.
146There are a huge number of such energy sources that could potentially be used, and I'll highlight a few of them here. Advancing technologies are continually making both wind power and solar power more efficient, with one study proposing that wind power is quickly becoming competitive with fossil fuels, even in a monetary economic system (4,5). Logically speaking, I think it makes sense that if one were to live on a planet that is circling a gigantic ball of nuclear reactions that is constantly firing free energy in all directions, that one might want to take advantage of this source. Fortunately for us, we happen to live on such a planet, where we can harness the power of our sun directly using solar panels, or indirectly using the wind, which is driven by the sun's heat. Despite these convenient sources, wouldn't it be even more convenient if there was a substantial source of heat energy sitting right under our feet? As it turns out, there is. Geothermal energy taps directly into the extreme heat that permeates most of the interior of our planet, providing a practically unlimited source of energy (6). While geothermal power does generate a small amount of pollution, advanced geothermal systems will be
147able to reduce this amount, while simultaneously increasing efficiency and locking excess CO2 in the ground, rather than pumping it into the air (7).
148Each of these sources are being used to some extent today, but there is another source of energy that is as of yet largely untapped, despite being extremely abundant and completely clean. I'm speaking of the power of our oceans; specifically wave and tidal power. Wave power involves harnessing the energy of ocean surface waves, and converting their kinetic energy into electrical energy, a process which could have up to an astonishing 99% efficiency (8). Since surface waves are driven by the wind, this would also be an indirect method of harnessing the power of the sun. Another energy source abundant in the ocean is tidal power, wherein we harness the kinetic energy of changing ocean tides in order to generate electricity (9). Since tides are created by the gravitational force of the moon, we would actually be harnessing the moon's gravitational energy. You can't find a much cleaner source of energy than gravity!
149Furthermore, in order to ensure a constant supply of energy from some of these sources, it would be necessary to make use of supercapacitors. A supercapacitor is a device that stores a large amount of electric charge, sort of like a giant battery (10). They would be used to ensure that sources with variable energy output would always be able to provide stable amounts of electricity. For example, on a very windy day, a wind turbine might generate more energy than is needed at that time. Rather
15012
151than allow this energy to go to waste, it would be stored in a nearby supercapacitor, and would then be harnessed on days when the wind is low and less energy is being generated. This same logic would also apply to solar panels, which generate variable energy depending on how sunny the day is. The strategic use of supercapacitors would ensure that power outages and rolling blackouts became things of the
152past.
153As we can see, there is a huge variety of sustainable, environmentally friendly energy sources which could provide all of the power that is necessary to run society. In fact, solar energy on its own could theoretically provide 1000 times as much energy as the Earth uses right now (11). The point is, there is absolutely no reason we could not power our entire global society using clean, sustainable energy sources, other than the fact that it is currently not as 'profitable' as using fossil fuels.
154
155Use and Management of Resources
156
157It's all well and good to pump out a lot of energy, but it doesn't do us a whole lot of good unless we are able to to provide for the needs of our species. And this all starts with the planet's resources. As
158it says in the name, a Resource Based Economy is all about managing the planet's resources in the most efficient and responsible way possible. This is to ensure that there will always be enough resources for every human to not only survive, but thrive. So, not only do we have to be responsible with our
159resource use, but we should also make sure that the entire process is as automated as possible.
160We'll start by talking about what are perhaps the most important resources of all: food and water. As of today, the primary method of generating food is to plant things in the ground and hope to the gods that they grow. Despite engaging in agriculture for about 12 000 years, we have yet to make any major advances in the way we grow food. Rather than relying on traditional methods, such as irrigation and praying for droughts to end, wouldn't it make much more sense for us to make use of advanced agricultural technologies?
161This is where the concept of vertical farms comes in. A vertical farm is a building that uses hydroponics and aeroponics to grow food on an industrial scale in the middle of a controlled environment. Since all of the food is grown indoors, we would no longer need to rely on finding the right kind of dirt to grow food. Instead, we could grow food anywhere that a tower could be built, at any time of year, in any sort of weather. Furthermore, growing the food in a controlled environment means that we would no longer need to use poisonous pesticides or other harmful chemicals, instead growing purely organic produce. Couple this with the fact that hydroponics and aeroponics require about 5-10% of the water and nutrients that are spent on traditional farming, and suddenly we have the ability to vastly increase our food production, and have that food available basically anywhere. Apartment buildings could have a few floors devoted to farming, thus providing the building with fresh, local, organic produce. The same logic could also be used for schools and hospitals. And of course, since the food is grown in a building rather than on a farm, there would be no need to burn copious amounts of energy on transporting the food hundreds of miles into the city; all of the food
162would be grown right around the corner, if not a few floors above your bed. Best of all, waste and water could continually be recycled in this system, thus vastly reducing the amount of resources needed in order to keep a vertical farm running, and preventing the building from producing large amounts of pollution. Ultimately, this single technology could allow us to produce enough food to feed the entire human population. The list of benefits goes on and on.(12)
163Of course, relying purely on vertical farms makes the assumption that the whole world is vegetarian. Fear not, my good omnivores, for research in the field of artificial meat production is accelerating as we speak. By growing muscle tissue in a controlled, artificial medium, it would be possible to produce meat products (along with animal skins and furs for use in clothing) without ever
16413
165having to kill another animal. In addition, the controlled environment greatly reduces the risk of animal-borne diseases reaching your mouth, produces none of the pollution associated with traditional meat production, and eliminates the need to clear-cut forests to create grazing land for livestock animals. The major drawback is that artificial meat production is still in its infancy. Further research will be required before artificial meat can be produced on an industrial scale, particularly within a monetary system. Nonetheless, the prospect of being able to produce meat of ideal quality without worrying about disease, pollution, or animal suffering makes this a field that is likely to see some serious attention in the near future. (13)
166That covers the production of food, but what about water? Even though most of our planet is covered by it, the majority of water in the world is not drinkable by humans. So, how will we solve the problem of giving every human access to clean water? After all, it's not like we can just create water out of thin air, right? Actually, we totally can. Atmospheric water generators have the ability to create pure water from the moisture that is locked in the air (14). Keep in mind that when water evaporates from our salty oceans, the salt doesn't go with it; the moisture that is present in our atmosphere would actually be able to provide us with a universal source of clean water. It is literally floating around in front of our faces.
167So, we now have the potential to eradicate hunger and ensure that no human will ever need to drink contaminated water again. Not a bad start. However, there are resources other than food that we need to consider, most of which require extraction directly from the environment. Before we can begin extracting resources, we must first have a system in place to keep track of how much of each resource we have, where they are located, and their rates of change. The initial surveys would likely need to be done by humans, just as they are now. However, once the first set of data is in, the rest of the process could be automated.
168For example, let's say we want to keep track of the number of trees in a forest. First, we would send a survey team into the area to make an estimate of the number of trees in the forest, by having the team count the number of trees in a known area and multiplying that by the total area of the forest (a process called sampling). This number would then be recorded into a Resource Management Database. Rather than having all of the data locked up in one computer, it would be distributed amongst a worldwide network (much like the Internet), in order to ensure that one computer's failure would not bring the whole system down. Once the initial surveys are complete, we would set up a system of cameras or automatic sensors that would be able to count the number of trees currently present in the sampled area, and constantly compare this number to the one initially logged into the system. This would allow us to not only keep track of how many trees are present, but also their rate of use and renewal over long periods of time. This same logic would need to be applied to major resource deposits of all kinds, all around the world. It is critical that we keep track of things like fresh water supplies, animal populations, and rare metal deposits. By having all of the information integrated into a worldwide 'Internet-like' database, the information would always be available to anyone around the world. Although this tracking method is less than perfect, advancing technology could make the entire process more accurate and automated over time.
169Okay, now we know how much we have of all of the major resources, and where they are located. Next, we need to be able to extract and refine these resources so that we can actually use them. Fortunately for us, autonomous resource extraction systems are already in existence. Take for example, the process of mining. Surface radar systems are able to automatically map an underground area and provide real-time data to an operator (15). In an RBE, the 'operator' would simply be a computer that receives input data from the Resource Management Database and the Global Demand Database (more on that soon). Once the area is mapped, autonomous excavating systems are able to navigate the rock faces and determine precisely how to extract the desired mineral (16). The movement of minerals
17014
171across the site could be accomplished by using automated hauling trucks (17). Once the minerals are extracted and transported, they must be refined into a useable form. Once again, fortune smiles upon us, as automating the mineral refining process is completely plausible as of today (18). Once the refining process is complete, we would be ready to move into manufacturing and distribution.
172
173Manufacturing of Goods
174
175Here's where things start to get really interesting. The primary goal of an RBE is to provide all the necessary goods and services a person needs to have a happy, healthy, productive life. But how would that be possible? In a word: automation. Automation is the process of replacing human labour with machines that perform the same task. Let's see how automation would be applied to make the entire labour-based manufacturing process of today obsolete.
176We'll start by talking about a specific kind of technology that really is the key to the entire manufacturing process in an RBE: Additive manufacturing. Additive manufacturing, more commonly known as '3-D printing', is a process whereby an entire object is constructed by being built up layer by layer until a complete product is created. In the same way that 2-dimensional printers place a layer of ink onto paper in order to create a 2-D image, 3-D printers place layers of material atop one another in an automatic fashion until a real, physical object is created from a computer model. What's more, the objects need not be simple shapes; complicated geometries and moving parts are all possible to 'print', using a variety of different materials. This is of critical importance, because it means that we would no longer need to rely on traditional mass production techniques where a product is assembled from separate parts. Instead, a product is built together in one piece, allowing materials to be combined and integrated in ways that are simply not possible using traditional manufacturing. Smaller 3-D printers generally create objects using thermoplastics, which are biodegradable plastics derived from plant material, such as cornstarch (19,20). Large-scale 3-D printing is known as contour crafting, and using this technique it is possible to construct a multi-bedroom concrete house with plumbing and electronics completely integrated in a single day, without the need for any human labour. This construction method also produces far less waste than hobbling together a house out of wood and bricks, in addition to producing houses that are much more resistant to extreme weather, such as earthquakes and floods. Using additive manufacturing, all it would take to build virtually any object from scratch is a computer model and some imagination. (21,22,23)
177The fact that most consumer 3-D printing would be done using thermoplastics would also result in an unprecedented level of efficiency. Since thermoplastics are made from plant material, we would no longer require fossil fuels to make plastics. Instead, we would literally be able to 'grow' our plastics in the aforementioned vertical farms; some of the produce being grown would be earmarked for the making of thermoplastics. And, since these plastics are biodegradable, no plastic object would ever need to be thrown away. Instead, older plastic goods could be sent back to the vertical farms, where they would be composted. The nutrients could then be fed back into the plants that would become the thermoplastics of tomorrow, thereby allowing us to exercise an extremely efficient form of recycling. The types of landfills and dumping sites which are common today would become literally unthinkable in an RBE.
178Now that we understand a bit more about our method, we can start discussing the actual process of manufacturing goods. One major difference between an RBE and today's economic systems is that we would no longer be forced to create less-than-optimal goods in order to maintain cost efficiency. In other words, in an RBE, every item created would be of the absolute best quality that is physically possible. As of today, many of us must buy 'cheaper' products because we cannot afford to buy the best of everything. Likewise, manufacturers are forced to create products of lower quality because they
17915
180cannot afford to construct everything in the best possible way. This results in us constantly needing to replace worn out clothing, have our automobiles repaired, and throw out broken products which were never built to last very long in the first place. The need for cost efficiency results in a wasting of resources, energy, and time that is absolutely unacceptable.
181So, in an RBE we would go with the method of maximum efficiency and minimum waste; make every product as stable and long lasting as possible. Likewise, all electronic products must be made to be as easily upgradeable as possible. This way, we wouldn't need to throw out an old computer just because newer computers are faster. Instead, we would constantly upgrade our electronics in order to ensure that they are always functioning as well as they possibly can. In that same vein, absolutely every product that cannot be continually upgraded must be recyclable or biodegradable. There is simply no purpose in creating excess waste if we can avoid it.
182Producing products in this manner does seem to result in one potential drawback at first: Standardization. If we are creating every product in the best possible way every time, then wouldn't that make every product identical? For example, wouldn't every car look the same? Wouldn't every t- shirt and computer look like every other t-shirt and computer? This might lead some people to worry that there would be a huge reduction in individuality and personal expression. Fortunately, there is a
183very simple solution to this problem: Customization. Since every product is being created from scratch, the potential for customization is far greater than what is possible today. The best example to show this is the manufacturing of clothing. People often use the clothing they wear in order to display their individuality, despite the fact that virtually everything we wear was designed by someone else. Couple this with the fact that much of what people wear is influenced by trends in the fashion industry, and we quickly realize that there is very little true individuality being expressed through outward appearances today. Let's pretend I'm living in a RBE and I want to order a t-shirt (we'll talk more about how
184products would be distributed shortly). I would sit at my computer, and bring up the standard 't-shirt' model. I would then be able to customize the colour, the shape and size, the design, and make any other superficial adjustments I felt like making. The product I receive would still be as durable and long lasting as the standard t-shirt model, and it would also be a personal expression of my individuality. That is why, in an RBE, any personal goods available would be both standardized and customizable.
185For public use goods (which we'll talk about soon), however, there would not be any real need for this kind of customization. These types of goods would be essentially identical, in order to minimize the expenditure of resources on items that have no need for superficiality.
186So, in an RBE, all products would be created from scratch, without the need for human labour, with the highest quality possible, recyclable or biodegradable wherever possible, and standardized; universally upgradeable for electronics, and completely customizable for personal goods such as clothing. This would result in a manufacturing system that is far less wasteful, far more efficient, and far more personalized than anything seen today. However, we've only covered one half of the equation; goods. Now, let's talk about how services would look in an RBE.
187
188Services
189
190It takes more than just material goods to run a society. Continuing with our philosophy of freeing humans from labour whenever possible, nearly all services would also be automated. This might sound like an impossible task at first, but we have to keep in mind that many of the services which exist today would not exist in an RBE. Any occupations having to do with finance, law, advertising, business, or politics would no longer be around, since there would no longer be any need for them. If you are confused by that last sentence, just wait a few more paragraphs. By the end of this chapter, all will be explained; we just need to cover a few more things first.
19116
192So, what services would still exist in an RBE? We would still need medical services, an educational system, a research sector, an arts community and...well, that's pretty much it. Less critical services, such as automated restaurants and food vendors, would still exist in order to give people social hubs in which to gather and eat together, since social interaction is a critical need for producing healthy humans. In fact, automated restaurants and robotic chefs exist today, and so automation would likely become a staple of food preparation in an RBE, whether at home or in public places (24,25,26). Now, let's talk a bit more about each of the major kinds of services, and how they would operate.
193As of today, it is unlikely that medical services could be entirely automated, but it would still be possible to drastically reduce the workload of medical practitioners by ensuring that society as a whole is much more physically healthy than it is today. In addition to the removal of unhealthy polluting energy sources, an organic diet tends to create organisms that are more resilient to disease (27). By having education freely available to all people, it's likely that people would be more knowledgeable about maintaining their own health. In addition, each human would be more capable of monitoring
194their own health, thanks to inventions like the mirror which will be able tell you your heart rate, blood pressure, blood oxygen levels, and respiratory health just by standing in front of it (28). The logic is quite straightforward; by creating a society where people are much less likely to get sick, we would reduce the workload for medical practitioners.
195That being said, the idea of increasing the automation of medical services is not as farfetched as one might think. Currently, needle-bearing robots are able to give precise injections (29). Miniaturized swimming and crawling robots are able to move through our body in order to monitor our health from the inside (30). Robotic surgeons are able to perform invasive surgeries with more accuracy and precision than is physically possible for a human surgeon (31,32). In an RBE, we would therefore maximize the use of automated robotic medicine in order to minimize the workload for human doctors further, which would be possible without the constant need to worry about how much medical equipment 'costs', money-wise. Humans would still probably be needed for specialized cases, and for general operation of the medical robots, but the need for human intervention would continually decrease as technology improved, and could theoretically become unnecessary in the future. Already, it is possible for human doctors to act through fully articulated robot 'avatars' which allow a doctor to interact with a patient without being present in the same room (or country) (33).
196So, during the early stages of an RBE, automated robots would mostly take the role of medical assistants and nurses, performing basic tasks such as patient monitoring and uncomplicated diagnoses, as well as doing the 'dirty work' of injections and surgery. Meanwhile, human doctors would be free to spend more time on special or rare cases, on direct patient interaction, or on medical research. This would prevent any one doctor from being 'spread too thin' among a large number of patients, or from becoming overworked or overstressed, all of which are common issues for medical practitioners today. Over time, more and more of the tasks performed by human medical practitioners would be handed off to automated machines, and humans would be completely relegated to the tasks of research and very special cases. Of course, human medical practitioners could not exist unless there was a comprehensive educational system in place.
197Education in an RBE would look very different from today's competition-based educational systems, where students are pitted against each other in a struggle for grades and popularity that generally results in a universally poor experience for virtually all students (34). I am personally amazed at the ability of traditional schools to turn even the most interesting of subjects into mind-numbingly boring drivel, that must be regurgitated onto a test in order to receive an arbitrary number or letter that supposedly represents how learned an individual is. Instead, RBE education would follow a model similar to Montessori educational systems. In brief, Montessori schools encourage independent
198learning through play and child-on-child interaction. Children of multiple ages are grouped together
19917
200rather than isolated, so that younger children can learn from older ones, while older children reinforce their learning in a practical way by teaching the younger children. Rather than having teachers play the role of dictators and drill sergeants, teachers act simply as guides; they are available for guidance when the child requires it, but otherwise they are simply there to ensure that everything is running smoothly with minimum interference. These types of educational systems have been proven to be just as
201effective (and sometimes more so) as traditional schooling when it comes to concrete learning, in addition to producing humans with superior social development (35,36,37). It is this latter quality of Montessori-style schools which make them critical for the success of an RBE; citizens of an RBE would be more cooperative, less antagonistic, more sociable, less aggressive, and have generally
202superior psychosocial development compared to those of us who were forced into the incredibly flawed educational systems of today (36,37). (38)
203So, what would education in an automated society look like? Here is a potential example of one based on the Montessori system. I should stress once again that this is simply an example of a system, and is not necessarily a prediction of what the educational system would actually be.
204Early childhood development would be largely in the hands of the parents and the community, much as it is today. The main responsibility of the parent would be to teach the child basic skills such as reading, writing, and computer interaction, so that the child would be prepared for 'school'. Rather than forcing a child into school at a certain age, the child would be free to visit an educational center whenever they felt ready. During the early stages of education, children would all share a play area filled with toys and other objects (such as basic art supplies) that encourage cognitive development in the very young. The area would also be filled with computers, all of which would allow them to access basic lessons in such subjects as mathematics, natural science, art, literature, and history. This process would not require a teacher or parent to be present, since the children would learn from each other, and
205the computer database would fill the role of the teacher/guide. Despite this, I think it is likely that many parents would jump at the opportunity to be directly involved in their child's learning, and so would choose to be present. Without being forced into 'jobs', parents would be free to spend as much time
206with their children as they wanted, and could be more intimately involved in their child's educational process.
207Each child would be required to pass a basic test designed to evaluate their ability in all of the basic knowledge areas before advancing to the general education program. In this next step, people of all ages, from 'elementary' aged children to adults and seniors would all share the same learning areas. The areas would be similar to the early childhood ones, but with more complex objects available for play, as well as materials for more complex artistic expression (musical instruments, painting supplies, etc.) and basic scientific experimentation. The computers present would be connected to the Global Knowledge Database. This would be a 'wiki'-style encyclopedia created in an open-sourced fashion where anyone can contribute knowledge. It would be much like the online encyclopedias of today, but ideally, bigger, better sourced, and created with the full aid of powerful computers and artificial intelligence, instead of relying on whatever computing power can be bought with donations. This would vastly increase the potential of this already powerful idea. (And, of course, the Internet as we know it today would still be present.) In this way, learners of all ages and experience levels would be free to learn about whichever subjects they were interested in, at whatever rate they were comfortable with. This would encourage them to begin to hone in on their particular subjects of interests very quickly, while maintaining some interest in many other fields as well.
208Like modern textbooks, the database would also contain practical problem solving modules designed to develop the skill of the learner in each subject. Children and adults would simultaneously learn from each other and the Knowledge Database, and would have access to knowledge ranging from the most basic to the most advanced in every subject. There would be no limitations based on age; a
20918
210very dedicated 13 year old teaching a 31 year old about quantum physics would not be out of the ordinary. Individuals who are very knowledgeable in certain areas (as determined by their ability to pass problem solving modules of high complexity) would be encouraged to hold lectures and
211discussion groups, as well as contribute more problem solving questions to the Knowledge Database. In this way, the educational system would continually grow as our species grows. And, since education is freely available to everyone, it is likely that most people would never stop learning, constantly seeking new knowledge throughout their lives whenever the interest hit them. In addition, as artificial intelligence becomes more powerful, it would be possible for the database to learn how each individual learns, and therefore customize the educational experience to be specific and optimized for each
212person. The ultimate purpose of the education system would be to produce happy, cooperative, knowledgeable, socially well-adjusted humans which are able to take on the challenges of advancing society (rather than simply maintaining it).
213There is no force that serves the advancement of society in practical terms more than scientific and technological research. Therefore, it would be absolutely necessary for an RBE to have a strong focus on research. Once again, there would be no limitations based on age; anyone with sufficient knowledge in the requisite area would be free and encouraged to contribute to research in whatever
214way they could. Perhaps the greatest difference between research today and in an RBE would be due to the lack of a monetary system. Speaking from my own personal experience in medical research, the single greatest hindrance to scientific progress is money. Simply put, scientific research is expensive. Therefore, most scientists must take weeks or even months out of every year begging granting agencies for money, many of whom will not provide it unless there is a chance that profit can be made from the research. Perhaps the best example of this is the current crisis involving dichloroacetate (DCA), which is a highly promising cancer treatment that could bring us one step closer to curing cancer (39). However, researchers are unable to obtain funding due to the fact that DCA cannot be patented by any drug companies. This means that no one would be able to make money from its sale, and thus cancer remains uncured. However, in an RBE, there would be no need to waste time and energy on the often fruitless quest for funding, and resources would not be held back due a lack of 'profitability'. Therefore, scientific research would accelerate far quicker than we see today. When one considers how much progress has been made in scientific and technological research in the last century, even with the hindering drag of the monetary system, we can quickly see that scientific advancement in an RBE would be absolutely astonishing. It is no stretch to say the an RBE would quickly become an extremely technologically advanced society, the likes of which we see in the science fiction of today.
215Furthermore, there would be no need to wait for the 'Market' to accept new technologies; anything that is of practical use and has been tested for safety would be implemented as soon as possible for the benefit of society. Implementation would be based on practical usefulness, rather than attempts to 'make money'. In addition, research would be aided even more by the Global Knowledge Database. For example, let's say someone is trying to come up with a choice material that possesses certain properties which are required for an experiment. That person would punch these properties into the Global Database, with some kind of designation that it is a question of materials. The computer then comes up with a list of as many materials which fit the description as possible, in order of best match to the demand. This is literally exactly what a search engine today does, but this search engine
216contains (ideally) all of the scientific and technical information in its most up to date format at the time. The database must be continually updated when new theories or ideas are taken in favour of older ones (although older ideas should never be eradicated completely, since there is always a chance that they will be needed again). This process would need to be voluntary at first, but would almost certainly become automated as well, eventually. In this way, scientific research would not only accelerate even faster, but the educational system would always be based on the most current state of scientific
21719
218knowledge.
219There is more to a society than just scientific progress, however. It is critical that a fully functioning society also provides its citizens with opportunities for personal expression and emotional stimulation, as realized through a vibrant arts community. Once again, without the hindrance of money, art would be able to flourish in ways that would simply not be possible today. Too often, potential artists must put aside their dreams in order to find a job that actually pays well enough for them to survive. Likewise, many artists end up compromising their artistic vision in order to create something that is more commercially viable (selling-out). In a society where everyone's basic needs are met without worry, artistic expression of all kinds would likely explode, thus creating a society that is not only scientifically and technologically advanced, but is also rich in artistry and culture of all kinds. Music, poetry, theatre, literature, storytelling, painting, sculpting, philosophy, and all other forms of expression would at last be free to reveal themselves without worry of censorship or monetary gain. In order to accommodate the artistic community, every city would need to be complete with a number of auditoriums and exhibition halls which could be booked on a first-come-first-serve basis. In addition, a variety of museums and galleries would be present in order to display the artistic contributions of the citizens. Like scientific research, artistic contributions would also be continually added to the
220Knowledge Database in order to further enhance the education system, by offering access to the artistic works of humanity. So, an RBE would not be some bland, emotionless civilization; it would instead be a fusion of science and art, which brings logic and emotion into a harmony never before seen. It would be like a second renaissance that went on indefinitely.
221
222Transportation and Infrastructure
223
224There are few ventures that require more resources, energy, and time than transportation. Whether we're moving people, cargo, or both, we spend large portions of our lives attempting to move things from one place to another. To complicate matters further, human controlled transportation is almost universally dangerous. Whether we're talking about car accidents, oil tanker spills, or pedestrian collisions, human errors often result in transportation being a risky and life-threatening activity. So, in an RBE, the transportation system would be set up to maximize efficiency and minimize the need for human control of any kind.
225Short-distance transportation, as well as transportation to remote and rural areas, would be accomplished mostly through the use of cars, like today. However, these cars would be nothing like the gas-powered clunkers which rule the road at present. Rather than continuing to rely on the over 100- year-old technology that is the combustion engine, we would instead switch to entirely electric automobiles, which produce no pollution and have fewer moving parts that can break down. Electric cars are not a new idea, but they have traditionally been given a bad reputation due their poor performance compared to traditional cars, as well as their relatively short driving range. However, these concerns are now things of the past. A highly advnaced modern electric car is able to travel more than
226200 miles on a single charge, with the ability to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour in under 4 seconds; faster than many top-of-the-line sports cars. This is because, unlike a gasoline car, which only exhibits peak performance within a narrow RPM range, an electric car always performs at peak power, delivering maximum torque throughout the entire RPM range. This is why a 250 hp electric car can outperform a 500 hp gasoline car in a short distance race. This also means that electric cars have no need for bulky transmissions, which add weight and are often a site of mechanical trouble. In addition, traditional cars must sacrifice fuel efficiency in order to obtain better performance, whereas electric cars actually become more efficient, the more powerful they are. An electric car that performs as well
227as the most powerful sports cars of today is actually more energy efficient than the most fuel efficient
22820
229of gasoline or hybrid cars. So, gearheads need not fear the future; you will have access to cars that can outdo nearly all of the primitive hunks of metal which populate today's parking lots, in addition to being more efficient and environmentally friendly. (40,41)
230Speaking of parking lots, one of the most detrimental side effects of our current automotive situation is the fact that modern cars take up a huge amount of space. However, this problem can be overcome thanks to technologies like the bit car. Bit cars are small, collapsible cars that can be stored by folding up horizontally and 'stacking' like shopping carts. These cars are entirely electric, and utilize a concept called 'robot wheels'. Rather than have a bulky engine block, all of the necessary equipment for powering and moving the car is packaged directly into the wheels, thus eliminating a huge amount of space and weight, along with increasing manoeuvrability. The idea of the bit car is to largely eliminate the concept of the 'personal automobile', and instead switch to a system of public use cars. Basically, an individual would walk up to a stack of cars, hop in the front car, drive to their destination, then return the car to the nearest stack. The stacking areas would also serve as charging stations, ensuring that every trip is made with a full battery. By utilizing this concept, we would maximize the use of every car (since each one would be shared among a large number of people) while reclaiming nearly all of the space taken up by parking lots (about 74 times less spaces would be needed for storing bit cars). Although this incredibly logical and efficient concept might sound strange to contemporary
231society, which seems to be obsessed with the concept of personal 'ownership', it would be utilized to the fullest in an RBE. (42)
232However, there is more to transportation than just efficiency; we must also take safety and convenience into account. Most of the problems with safety stem from the fact that automobiles are controlled by humans. The bit car idea also raises the danger of sacrificing the convenience of a having personal automobile. Both of these problems can be overcome by using fully automated, driverless cars. As of today, the technology for cars which can drive themselves already exists, with autonomous automobiles that are able to navigate complex off-road terrain, as well as safely deal with the complicated interactions that take place at intersections (43,44). Therefore, the vast majority of cars would be driverless, thus reducing the risk of human error down to essentially zero. There would still
233be the option of manual control for certain kinds of recreational automobiles when it was desired (which would prevent humans from completely losing the skill of driving), but daily transportation needs would be fulfilled entirely by automated vehicles. As an example, let's say you're sitting at your house and you want to make a short trip. You would simply order a car, and it would drive up to your house automatically. Bit car stations would be situated throughout the city so that the wait times would never exceed a few minutes. Once the car arrives, you simply hop in, punch in your destination, and let the car take you there. After you exit the car, it either returns to the nearest charging station if it's in need of a charge, or it drives off to pick up the next passenger. In addition, if you happen to be near a charging station, you wouldn't even have to wait for a car to come to you; you would simply select a
234car and drive off. It would essentially be a highly efficient taxi service, with the roles of dispatcher and driver replaced by automation. This would result in a highly efficient short-distance transit system that is completely automated, environmentally friendly, and as efficient and safe as possible.
235Mid-range transportation (between major city sections and between nearby cities) would be accomplished through systems such as SkyTranTM, a passive magnetic levitation (maglev) system, where 2 person pods hang from a small magnetic guideway track. This technology is similar to the maglev trains of today, where a magnetic field is used to levitate a train slightly above the surface of the track, resulting in a massive reduction in friction and allowing for high speed and efficiency. However, this efficiency is further enhanced in SkyTranTM by making use of a passive maglev system, where the energy required for keeping the pods suspended is generated by the movement of the pods themselves. This allows for an extreme level of efficiency, wherein a pod can travel at 240 km/h using
23621
237the amount of energy required to power 2 hairdryers (that is not a typo). Like today's train systems, SkyTranTM works by having boarding stations at convenient locations, which can also double as charging stations for electrics cars (thus allowing for excellent synergy with the bit car system). The small guideways mean that boarding stations and tracks alike take up very little space (the tracks themselves are suspended in the air), thus freeing up even more space in the city. In addition, unlike
238traditional train stations, SkyTranTM stations work on a freeway-like 'offramp' system, meaning that one pod stopping to pick up passengers does not force every other pod to stop and wait for it. The combination of speed, efficiency and convenience make SkyTranTM a logical form of transportation for use in an RBE. (45)
239Long-distance transportation (between distant cities, and across or between continents) would be accomplished through a new technological innovation, known as evacuated tube transport. Once again, this system is similar to the maglev trains of today, but evacuated tube transport (which I will now refer to as a 'vactrain' for short) differs in that the train is not just suspended above a track, but is actually completely enclosed in a tube in which all air pressure has been removed, creating a near vacuum. The combination of frictionless movement and zero air resistance results in a level of speed and efficiency that is almost unimaginable compared to contemporary transportation. (46)
240Here's how it works in a nutshell: You stand at an airlock and punch in the destination you want to go to. A lightweight capsule about the size of a large car is brought before you, and you hop in. The airlock closes behind you, and you are now sitting in a very comfortable controlled environment, much like the pressurized cabin of an airplane. Electric motors are used to accelerate the capsule up to speed in about 20 seconds while producing only about 1 g of force on the body, at which point it can simply coast the rest of the way to its destination without expending any additional energy until the capsule is decelerated to a stop. Local trips would be made at speeds of up to 600 km/hr, faster than the fastest maglev train in operation today. Long distance trips would be made at speeds up to 6500 km/hr, fast enough to travel from one side of the planet to the other in under 4 hours. Once you arrive at your destination, you simply wait for the airlock to open and exit the capsule. Vactrains could be built using a fraction of the resources of traditional trains, all while being theoretically safer than any form of transportation around today. One potential drawback of this system would be the need to create an entirely new infrastructure consisting of evacuated tubes, but these would take up much less space than traditional train tracks, and the capsules themselves would be much easier to manufacture on a large scale. Each capsule would comfortably seat 4 to 6 people, weigh about 400 lbs, and be able to carry
241about double their own weight. In order to create a more comfortable environment, the capsule interiors would be equipped with 'virtual windows' that could simulate any kind of outdoor environment, in addition to displaying games or movies to pass the time. It would also make sense for each capsule to
242be connected to the various Global Databases and the Internet, so that people could study or browse while they were waiting to arrive at their destination. In addition to transporting people, vactrains would also be ideal for transporting cargo, and could therefore replace the inefficient trucking and shipping systems used today. In summary, vactrains would provide us with transportation that is safe, comfortable, efficient, and amazingly fast. It would be the ideal form of transportation in an RBE. (46)
243Efficiency could also be maximized by making use of smaller tube systems for the delivery of small goods, as well the removal of waste and recycling. Pneumatic tube systems are still used in many hospitals to transport small items throughout the building (47). By scaling this system out, or by using smaller versions of the vactrain technology, it would be possible to create a comprehensive infrastructure that connects every building in the city. If you order a small item, such as a customized t- shirt, it is automatically delivered to your home. Tubes for recycling could be used to send old thermoplastics back to vertical farms to be broken down and recycled. Tubes for waste could ensure that anything that does need to be thrown out would be moved to the safest possible location where the
24422
245least amount of damage would occur (although there would be very few things that would actually be thrown out). The water system would be constructed so that our waste water is recycled into a useable form rather than simply dumped in a convenient location. This could be done by having human waste filtered out, with the nutrients extracted and delivered to the vertical farms, reducing the need for synthetic or animal fertilizers (I'm being serious here). Using current technology, it is possible to recycle waste water and retain more than 90% of the water in useable form, thus allowing us to use mostly the same water supply over and over (48). If you're disgusted by the idea of drinking water that used to contain your waste, consider the fairly high probability that the water you're drinking right now once contained fish, swimming around, and having generations worth of fish-sex. Their waste would
246have been in it too. The point is, we have water treatment technology for a reason, and by recycling our waste water we would make maximal use of our limited water supply, as well as reducing or even eliminating the need for artificial fertilizers.
247So, by combining automated bit cars, passive maglev pods and vactrains, we would be able to create a comprehensive public transport system that is fast, convenient, incredibly efficient, non- polluting, and leaves almost no room for human error. Likewise, an internal infrastructure consisting of pneumatic and/or miniaturized evacuated tubes would allow us to have highly convenient and efficient delivery, recycling, and waste management systems. Lastly, by using a wastewater recycling system,
248we would also get the most out of our water usage.
249
250Access vs. Property
251
252As of today, we live in a property based system. This is because, in an environment of scarcity, we must find ways to ensure that the goods we have fought for will remain in our possession. And so, we must claim certain things as our 'property', so that they will be protected by the legal system. This results in an incredibly inefficient and wasteful society, where every individual must have 'one of everything', even if they do not have the capacity to make use of many of those things. For example, a car spends the majority of its time being parked, doing nothing but taking up space. Someone who
253plays hockey for fun might own a set of hockey equipment that will not be used by anyone for 300 days out of the year. Not only is this system wasteful, but it also contributes to the relative scarcity that is present in today's economy; since everyone 'needs' their own car, we must produce far more cars than what is useful, resulting in the expenditure of resources which could have been used in a much more productive way. In order to overcome this issue in an RBE, we would switch from a system of
254'property' to a system of 'access'.
255An access system simply means that the majority of goods would not be 'owned' by any one person, but would instead be temporarily loaned out based on need. For example, a city near the ocean would have an access center where personal watercraft (such as small boats), would be freely available to anyone who wanted to use them. A person would simply take the boat, use it, and then return it when they were done. This way, every boat would get the maximum amount of use possible, thereby maximizing efficiency, and minimizing the need to create an excess supply of boats. This same system would also apply to things like cars (which we've seen with the bit car), sports equipment (other than jock straps and the like), specialized audio-visual equipment, and many other things. Just like the libraries of today, every item would be tracked upon withdrawal and return so that an accurate
256inventory would always exist. It would also make sense that the usage of each kind of item was tracked over time, so that trends in usage could be predicted, and supplies could be maintained accordingly. This would likely take the form of a Global Supply Database, which keeps track of all of the public goods and whether or not they are currently being used. This is no different than the type of inventory systems used in supermarkets today, other than being larger in scale.
25723
258Speaking of supermarkets, access centers for food would consist of a person simply walking in, taking what food they need, then walking out. (In my opinion, the fact that we currently have to charge money for this most basic necessity is a clear sign of our primitiveness.) Alternatively, you could have the food delivered right into your home via the tube delivery system. Even living spaces would be based on an access system. On the one hand, many people would prefer to live in one location, and so certain homes would be designed to be very personal, with customized interiors tailor made to the individual or family that ordered that home's construction. These homes would be logged into the Global Database as being 'long-term dwellings', and would not be included in the access system until the current occupants chose to vacate. On the other hand, this is a society where there is no need to settle in one location in order to maintain employment at a specific job. Therefore, many people would likely begin to live a more nomadic lifestyle, constantly moving from place to place (made very easy thanks to the vactrains). Because of this, many homes would be made rather generically, and would simply be logged into the Global Database as being 'temporary dwellings'. These homes would be tracked in terms of occupancy and vacancy, rather like hotel rooms, but on a larger scale. Once again, trends in settlement patterns would be tracked over time so that the Global Supply Database would always be able to keep up with the demand for either type of home.
259Of course, there are certain goods that many people would consider 'personal', and these goods would not be loaned out via the access system. Goods such as clothing would not be shared amongst society at large, mostly for hygienic reasons (although many people in warmer climates would probably choose not to wear clothing at all), as well as items of sentimental value, such as gifts and family heirlooms.
260By using an access system that maximizes the use of every good, along with intelligent resource management, and near complete automation of services and the manufacturing of goods, we would create a society of incredible efficiency and abundance. This results in something which has never before occurred in human history; the creation of a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is one in which goods and services are available in such abundance, and with such little need for human labour, that there would literally be no reason for money, barter, trade, or debt of any kind. After all, what is the point in charging money for something when there is more than enough available for everyone? And of course, this would also result in a massive reduction in 'criminal', violent, and aggressive behaviour of all kind. Why would anyone need to steal anything, or engage in violent acts to obtain items they need, when everything they need to live is being provided to them for free? Furthermore, without the stress caused by the constant need to compete for money and keep up a
261certain materialistic lifestyle, we would see an instant reduction in 'criminal' behaviour of all kinds (49). This is in addition to the reduction in crime we would see simply from the lack of a monetary system, in which people must often commit crimes in order to obtain the things they need to live. As you'll see by the end of this chapter, a highly educated post-scarcity civilization would have no need for governments or any other elite controlling groups. Instead, every person would have complete control over their own lives, every human would be equal, and social hierarchies would no longer exist. There would no longer be any drive for materialistic expressions of one's monetary 'success', as we often see today, since everyone has access to the same things. This would be a truly egalitarian society; a claim that has been made many times in the last century, but which has never actually been fulfilled on a
262large scale. But the all-important question to ask is this: Would this actually work?
263
264Motivation and Productivity
265
266Why would anyone want to perform any kind of 'work' without money? If everything is being provided for free, wouldn't most people just sit around and do nothing of value? What would happen to
26724
268the productivity of society without the need for competition? If we think back to our introductory chapter, we can see right away that these questions are actually very easy to answer. We know that the primary cause of laziness in today's society is the fact that people are forced into certain types of jobs - those with little opportunity for creativity or mental stimulation - and that these same types of jobs are the ones in which money is a real motivating factor. In an RBE, these types of jobs - the ones that make people lazy and that require monetary incentive in order to force people to perform them - would no longer be around. Automation would ensure that all mundane labour tasks, all mindless service tasks, and nearly every other occupation that encourages laziness would cease to exist. In addition, the massive reduction in stress caused by being forced into undesirable occupations would also result in a massive reduction in laziness. The only jobs remaining would be those that allow a person to exercise their creativity, which, as we saw in the introduction, has been proven to be its own reward. Think for a moment about all of the things you wish you could do, but are unable to do because you are 'too busy with work', or because you simply don't have enough money. If you suddenly found yourself with essentially unlimited free time, do you honestly think that you would spend all of your time just lazing around doing nothing? How many of you reading this have hobbies and interests that actually cost you time and money, but provide no monetary reward in return? Obviously, I cannot answer these questions
269for you, but I can tell you what the evidence suggests: People would not require monetary motivation to create art, to contribute to research, to master new skills, to learn about topics that interest them, or to perform other actions that allow them to express their creativity.
270I should also stress the fact that there would be no reason to feel guilty about spending time relaxing, since adequate relaxation time is critical for the overall health of the individual. In fact, most people would probably spend a lot less time 'working' and a lot more time engaging in leisure activities than they do today, and there would be nothing wrong with this. Not only would there be far less work that actually needed to be done by humans, but adequate relaxation time keeps cortisol levels low, which improves physical and mental health (50). The point of an RBE would be to 'work smart', rather than 'work hard'. By actually having a balance between work and leisure in our lives, we would create humans that are much happier and healthier, and therefore, much more productive overall (51).
271An RBE would also create additional incentive due to the fact that this would not be a competition-based society. Instead, cooperation would be encouraged for the practical benefits it provides. If you choose to do something that benefits society as a whole, your action is by definition also benefiting you, since you are part of society. By helping others, you would actually be helping yourself in a real, practical way. For example, if I took the time to help your child learn about human physiology, that increases the chance that your child would grow up to contribute positively to the medical system or to medical research. Either of these scenarios would be of great benefit to me personally, as well as to society at large. In competitive societies, we are sometimes reluctant to help others, since someone we help might end up landing a job we were trying to get, or making money that could otherwise have been made by us. There is nowhere this is displayed more strongly than in University classrooms. I have personally seen students refusing to help each other, or even actively attempting to sabotage others, in order to ensure that they will have a higher spot on the bell curve. In a cooperative society, however, we would be more strongly motivated to help each other for mutual benefit. If I help a fellow student learn, it increases the chances that said student will perform some action to benefit me in the future. And, as long as we're on the topic of cooperation, let's also remember that cooperation has been proven to result in greater productivity and innovation than competition. By having the whole of society working together, rather than competing with each other, our civilization would advance at a much more rapid pace.
272In summary, there would be far less 'work' to be done in an RBE than in today's society. Also, what work there is to be done would consist of activities which allow for creativity and personal
27325
274growth, which have been shown to be their own reward. Furthermore, having more time for relaxation, along with a society that is oriented towards cooperation rather than competition, would result in an overall increase in productivity. All of this would occur without the need to be forced into wage slavery by a debt-based system, like today. However, we still haven't completely answered the question of whether or not this system would be able to function. To do that, we must delve into one final facet of the RBE.
275
276Government and Law
277
278The word 'anarchy' has taken on a lot of baggage over the years. When most people hear the word 'anarchy', they immediately associate it with a state of chaos and destruction; indeed, many people think this is what the word 'anarchy' actually means. In truth, 'anarchy' simply means a lack of
279any kind of government, ruling class, or any other kind of authority that cannot justify why it should be obeyed. Instead, the people work together to 'govern' themselves (52). Of course, we might think that this would immediately result in chaos and destruction, particularly if we are talking about a poorly- educated, competitive population. But would this assertion be correct in a highly educated, cooperative society, such as we would find in an RBE? Let's find out, by discussing exactly how society would be run.
280An RBE would be an open-sourced society, meaning that anyone could contribute to any aspect of society they wanted, assuming they have the requisite knowledge or skill to do so. In a sense, this is similar to a democracy, in that every individual has a chance to contribute to the development of society. However, this method includes a built-in mechanism for ensuring the integrity of ideas: Rather than giving equal weighting to every single opinion, regardless of ignorance or lack of understanding, greater emphasis is placed on those ideas which are backed up by experiment and empirical evidence,
281since only those individuals who actually understand a particular system will be able to work on it. This might sound a bit frightening at first, since it almost sounds like a new kind of dictatorship. But we
282have to keep in mind that this is a society in which education in all subjects is freely available to everyone, so every person is a potential contributor in whichever areas they are most interested in.
283But then, who decides whether or not a person is able to contribute to a task or not? Quite simply, the task itself. If you are knowledgeable and skillful enough to understand that task and give meaningful suggestions as to how it can be carried out, then you are able to contribute. If you are not knowledgeable enough to understand the task at hand, then obviously you would be unable to contribute to it. Therefore, the only forms of 'authority' remaining would be those who can actually show that their ideas are trustworthy. For example, when you follow the advice given to you by a doctor, you are trusting in the authority of the doctor, since they are more knowledgeable about medicine than you are. When you drive across a bridge, you are trusting in the authority of the engineers, architects, and builders who constructed that bridge, since they are more knowledgeable about bridge-building than you are. An RBE is a society in which this kind of authority is the primary form authority takes. Now that we know a bit more about our overall methodology, we can begin discussing the specifics of managing day-to-day life in an RBE.
284This would mainly be done through periodic (let's say, annual) surveys, the most important of which would be a survey of demand. Every year, an online survey would be taken, where every human who wishes to contribute would give a general indication of what goods and services they need, and how much of those they require. This survey would include questions such as “What does your weekly diet usually consist of?”, “Do you live in a long-term or short-term residence?”, “Which public access goods do you use most often?”, “What questions would you like to see on next year's survey?” and so on. The point of this survey would be to establish a Global Demand Network, which would be a
28526
286comprehensive database of the demand for major goods and services for all of civilization. This network would act like an instruction manual for the Resource Management Network and the Global Supply Network, ensuring that the Earth's resources were used in the most efficient way to meet the needs and demands of the people. By employing this kind of system, we would be able to avoid the shortages and surpluses that plague Market economies, since each individual has direct control over their own economic lives (and this management requires no special knowledge or skill, other than being able to identify what you use in a given period of time). Although this kind of system sounds complicated, it is ultimately nothing more than a large calculator, dispersed across the entire global network, that matches the demand for goods and services with the supply. Once again, this is very similar to the automated inventory tracking systems used in mundane shopping centres, but on a much larger scale.
287Since these surveys are optional, we would need to make sure that the data extracted from them is scaled out to take into account the total population of Earth, rather than just those who filled out the surveys. In addition, in order to ensure that the system uses resources in the most logical and sustainable way, we would program in a set of parameters organized by priority. For example, one
288parameter could state that a system must use the cleanest and most sustainable forms of energy (such as solar and wind), resorting to polluting forms (such as geothermal) only if it can provide more energy in the desired context than the cleaner forms, and only resorting to non-sustainable forms of energy (such as fossil fuels) when there is no observable alternative. This same logic could be used to ensure that materials were used in the most sustainable way, and that necessities (such as food and shelter) are prioritized over recreational goods and the like. And of course, as our understanding improved, the parameters influencing our computers would be updated as well.
289Another important survey would be one of skill assessment. In this survey, people would indicate their skills and areas of knowledge. For example, one person might indicate that they are knowledgeable about organic chemistry and molecular biology. Another person might indicate that they are skilled at playing guitar, playing baseball, and doing vector calculus. Other people might indicate that they are 'good listeners'. It would also make sense for each person to indicate which languages they are fluent in. The point of this survey would be to create a Global Skill Database, which anyone could search in order to get in contact with someone who possesses a particular skill. This survey, like the others, would be optional. By filling out the survey, you would essentially be signalling that you are open to being contacted, and perhaps willing to move to another location (at least temporarily) in order to pursue some activity. For example, the 'good listener' might be contacted by people who are feeling lonely and simply need someone to talk to. The guitar player might be contacted by someone wishing
290to form a musical group. The molecular biologist might be contacted by a research group that is in need of that particular skill. In this way, we would be able to facilitate cooperation on a global scale, and
291thus encourage society's progress even further. In addition, those areas of research or product development which are in highest demand (let's say, top 5), would be used as guidelines to make widespread calls across the globe, in order to contact people who possess the desired skills. For example, if some new kind of virus suddenly appears that threatens the entire human species, then there would automatically be an open call to everyone who indicated that they have a skill that could be useful in finding a solution. It might be unlikely that absolutely everyone would answer the call, but based on what we learned in the previous section, many people would.
292Of course, there is still the question of who would program the computers, who would maintain them, and who would design the surveys. Let's answer that last question first; the surveys would be created based upon responses given in previous surveys. Each survey would include a section where people could indicate which questions they would like to see on next year's surveys, or any other changes they think would improve the surveying process. (If you're wondering who would design the
29327
294initial surveys, we'll talk about that in Section 3.) As for who would program and maintain the computers, the most obvious answer would be anyone who is interested and knowledgeable enough in computer science to contribute. Some people might worry that this would be giving too much 'power' to the computer experts, thus resulting in a new form of elitism. However, I will once again mention that this is a society in which education is freely available to all people. Anyone who wants to take the time to learn about computers would be able to do so, and could then go on to contribute to this important aspect of society. We should also keep in mind that the actual overarching decisions are not made by
295the computers; they are made by society as a whole through the survey system. The computers are simply responsible for making the background calculations, which are based entirely on logarithmic decisions making; there would be no place for human opinions to influence these background calculations. One individual or group 'taking over' society would therefore be highly unlikely.
296The end result of this system is that there would be no reason for a government of any kind. The
297'Government' and in an RBE would consist of literally anyone who wants to contribute to some aspect of society, and is knowledgeable or skillful enough in that area to do so. Both government and economic planning would be fully open-sourced institutions consisting of potentially the entire population. The decisions governing society would therefore be made directly by the people instead of by some 'representatives', who may or may not fulfil their promises to the people who elected them (and may or may not be in the pocket of some wealthy financier). This kind of direct decision-making process makes the representative democracy of today look more like a dictatorship-by-popular-vote. Which, in essence, is precisely what a representative democracy is. And so, an RBE would be a completely anarchic system; one without any government or ruling class of any kind. But instead of chaos, we would have explicit direction as desired by the whole population, and cooperation on a massive scale.
298So, now we've covered government. The next question is to ask is one of law. What kind of laws would there be in an RBE, and who would decide them? Who would enforce these laws? This is where things get even more interesting. In an RBE, there would be no purpose in having laws of any kind. I'll give you a minute to stop laughing...welcome back. If an anarchist government doesn't result in chaos, surely the absence of laws would, right?
299Well, first and foremost, let's remember that this is a system in which there is no debt of any kind. The majority of goods are freely available to the public, and personal goods are free to order or
300'print'. An economy that lacks a monetary or property system, in which everyone is simply given what they need to live, would by definition result in a massive drop in crime compared to today's system. There would be no reason to steal and nothing to sell. As we learned in the introduction, humans do not engage in 'criminal' behaviour for no reason; without the need or motivation to take from people, crime of all kinds would be reduced dramatically. Furthermore, just a few paragraphs ago we talked about how the stress required to 'keep up' in a competitive society actually inspires criminal behaviour. Once again, we would see a reduction in crime due to the low-stress environment of an egalitarian society.
301We also saw that the vast majority of humans do not engage in violent behaviour unless it is in response to a violent environment. With the reduction in crime we've already created, there would be far less violence and trauma in society. This would, in turn, result in a decrease in violent behaviour and further traumatic experiences. Ultimately, a criminal is not 'born', they are 'made' by the traumatic events that plague their pasts. By ensuring that these traumatic events are less likely to occur, we would further reduce the likelihood of traumatic events occurring in the future.
302In the rare event that someone did act violently, how would we punish them? The question itself is flawed. Rather than punish the violent, we would treat their behaviour as a mental illness, and
303attempt to resolve their issues with psychological counselling. The prison systems of today are actually massive generators of violent behaviour, not solutions to it (53). Rather than treat violent behaviour
30428
305with positive social relations (which is exactly what those individuals need to be mentally healthy), we instead place violent individuals in a situation that actually encourages them to be more violent; the stress- and violence-filled environment of prison. By treating violence as an illness that needs to be treated, rather than something that needs to be punished, we would greatly reduce violence even more than we already have. Drug addictions would be treated in exactly the same way, since they usually occur for the same reason; stressful and traumatic experiments (54). Therefore, drug addictions would also be treated through counselling rather than prison sentences, which would reduce the likelihood of future drug addictions.
306So, to summarize, an RBE would be a nonstressful, noncompetitive society, in which everyone is given what they need to survive, violence and addiction are treated rather than punished, and all kinds of violent and traumatic experiences are greatly reduced. This would result in a 'cycle of non- violence', wherein 'criminal' behaviours of all kinds would be exceedingly rare, and would continually decrease over time, becoming rarer and rarer with each passing generation. To make things even better, we still have not discussed the role of education. An educated society is much less likely to engage in
307'criminal' behaviour of any kind (55). Furthermore, we would teach people that violence and addiction are not issues of morality, but are issues of health. This would increase the chances that a violent individual or addict would actively seek out help for their problems, rather than avoid help for fear of punishment and moral judgement. However, due to the slight chance that there was a violent person who was opposed to receiving help (which would be an exceedingly unlikely event), it might be necessary to maintain some kind of small volunteer police force. This could consist of individuals who are well trained enough to locate and restrain the violent individual in some way, so that they could be sat down and treated with counselling. The fact that violent offenders would be so incredibly rare to begin with would mean that this event would almost never occur, and this volunteer police force would not have to be very large at all, but it never hurts to have some kind of procedure in place.
308To top it all off, we still haven't talked about all of the benefits of living in a completely equal society that is absent of social stratification. The level of equality in a society is directly related to a number of benefits. More equality results in: Greater physical and mental health, lower infant death rates, less drug abuse, greater educational achievement, lower rates of imprisonment, less obesity, greater trust and cooperation, less violence, less teenage births, improved child health, less consumption of resources, and a more environmentally friendly society (56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63). Let's keep in mind that all of these studies were performed in societies that have at least some 'wealth gap'. In an RBE, the 'wealth gap' would be zero; everyone would have access to the same 'wealth' as everyone else. This means that all of the benefits listed above should, in theory, be even stronger in an RBE. In keeping with our topic of the law, this kind of complete equality would result in even less undesirable behaviours such as violence and drug abuse, as indicated above. Couple this with the increased sense of social trust (which increases the chances of mentally ill individuals seeking help
309
310even more) and the multitude of other benefits, and we can see pretty clearly how an egalitarian society has much less need for laws in general. Rather than restrict peoples' freedoms with laws, we instead create an environment in which the probability of destructive behaviour occurring is so low, that it becomes indistinguishable from zero. What use would laws be in such a society?
311
312In addition to removing unnecessary restrictions on freedom, the absence of laws also produces another benefit: there would be no need to maintain a large, permanent police force. Today, we have men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis to enforce laws that may or may not be of any benefit to society. (Marijuana laws, anyone?) These individuals are often subject to incredible violence and trauma in the line of duty, and some officers engage in acts of brutal violence themselves as a result. All of this could be avoided by creating a society in which laws are unnecessary.
313Furthermore, the complete lack of government or law in any region would mean that we could
31429
315finally rid ourselves of the useless lines of separation we call 'borders'. These imaginary lines create superficial divisions within our species, often based on primitive notions of 'ethnicity'. From a practical standpoint, the purpose of borders is to divide up the land into various 'states', each with its own type of government and system of law. Without governments or laws of any kind, there would no longer be any point to this separation. The planet could finally be unified as a single family; a single organism that works for the benefit of the entire human species, rather than just a small percentage of it.
316There is one final benefit that I have been waiting to mention until the end of this section. Without governments, borders, social stratification, scarcity, or a tendency towards violence, we would officially be able to put an end to one of the most horrifying, violent, and universally detrimental enterprises in human history: War. First of all, there would be no governments to force their people to go to war, and there would be no 'countries' to go to war with. Let's stop and think for a moment: Why do countries go to war? Sometimes, it's because they want some resource another country possesses; everyone would be given everything they need to have a happy, healthy life in a RBE. Some wars are fought because one country feels they need protection from the other; in an RBE, there would be
317almost no violence or threats to need protection from. All too often, wars are fought for monetary profit; we would no longer have a monetary system that encourages the exploitation of suffering for profit.
318A world without war almost sounds too good to be true, but we have to keep in mind that large- scale warfare is a very recent development for our species; it is a product of the societies that we have created, and is not some inborn 'desire' that humans possess (64). This is likely why so many soldiers end up with serious psychological issues after returning home from war, such as post-traumatic stress disorder; the incredible level of violence and horror in a war zone is not something the human mind has evolved to tolerate. Without war, there would no longer be any need to send dedicated young soldiers off to their grave in order to ensure that the CEO of some construction company will be able to afford
319his weekly dose of cocaine and hookers. By creating a completely new kind of society in which warfare has literally zero benefits for any person, we would reduce the probability of war down to essentially zero. That would be a very interesting world to live in.
320So, in a non-stressful, highly educated, egalitarian, post-scarcity society, there is no reason why people of all cultures, genders, sexual orientations, religious beliefs, religious non-beliefs, and everything in between cannot live together in peaceful co-existence. There would be no reason for a privileged upper class that runs society, or a set of laws that restrict peoples' freedoms. Without wars, poverty, unemployment, stock market crashes, and the all too common traumatic situations which plague today's primitive society, there would be no one to blame, no one to get angry at, and no one to use as a scapegoat for society's problems; the vast majority of these problems would no longer exist. However, it's a pretty safe bet that other problems we currently cannot even think of would eventually start to surface. And, no matter how much we attempted to 'fix' society, there would always be new problems to deal with. Let's not kid ourselves by thinking this civilization would be 'perfect'. It would simply be a vast improvement over the society we have today; an improvement that is great enough that it would be incredibly illogical for us not to at least attempt to pursue something like it.
321
322Life in an RBE
323
324We'll finish this chapter off by talking about what day-to-day life might look like in an RBE. The best way I can think of to show this would be for me to simply describe the hypothetical life that I might live in this kind of system. This is simply an example of the kind of life that would be possible in an RBE; I expect that everyone reading this would have wildly different ideas as to how they would spend their time. This is another great benefit of an RBE; rather than all of us living nearly identical
32530
326'nine-to-five' lives, there would be massive diversity in the kinds of lives that people would live. So, here's how I think my life might look in an RBE...
327I would wake up in my temporary dwelling whenever I felt like it. After a healthy breakfast, I'd walk to the nearest transportation station and be whisked off to a research center. Here, I would spend the day researching biological ageing, which is a particular area of great interest for me. As the day began to grow late, I would head back home and print myself a customized water pipe. After an evening of smoking hemp and reading about theoretical physics, I would go to bed. The next day, I
328would travel to Machu Picchu, because I've always wanted to see it. The day after that, I might travel to the other side of the globe, and spend the next few days teaching kids about what it was like to live during the Second Dark Ages (as I'm sure our modern era will be called in the future). When I wasn't teaching, I'd spend some time learning about nanotechnology, and hopefully I would one day be able to contribute to research in that area as well. Perhaps I would spend the next few weeks jumping back and forth between labs and research topics. At some point I'd probably get bored of this, so I'd travel over to what we call India, and spend a month living in as close proximity to elephants as possible, likely with
329a research team. During this time, I would spend most of my days observing the elephants, and practising some musical instrument. (I'll be honest, right now I'm picturing myself riding on the back of an elephant while playing the keytar. Also, there would be hemp involved.) Eventually, I'd head back to the city and pull together some kind of band, probably making songs about my time with the elephants. Meanwhile, I would continue learning about a variety of subjects, and spend the odd day doing
330research whenever the mood struck me. Eventually, I would probably return to that first lab, and spend a few months dedicating as much time as possible to research. Then, I'd spend a few weeks just relaxing with friends and family, playing video games, reading, and watching old movies, before returning to the lab and continuing my research.
331And that is a brief glimpse of how I picture my life in an RBE. Hopefully, I would have friends joining me throughout the entire process, probably picking some up along the way. And, none of these friends would ever be lost, thanks to new invention that will probably change daily life in the future, in the same way that cellphones and the Internet have changed our lives in the present. It's called 'Sixth Sense'.
332Sixth Sense is essentially a small device with a built in camera and projector that you wear around your neck like a medallion, and is connected to a miniature computer in your pocket. The reason for the name 'sixth sense' is that this device takes intangible digital information, and brings that
333information into the physical world where we can interact with it, thus giving us access to a new 'digital sense'. The device works by projecting images onto any flat surface, which you interact with by using hand gestures which are tracked by the camera. Some actions which are possible include taking
334pictures using just your hands, drawing an image on a wall without actually leaving a permanent picture on said wall, and even projecting a circle onto the ground and kicking it around with your friends (seriously). Since the device is connected to the Internet (and in an RBE, the various global databases) it allows a person to access a huge amount of data wherever they are, and interact directly with that data using their own hands. This could also mean that devices such as cellphones would becomes obsolete; you could interact with someone on the opposite side of the planet any time you were near a flat surface (or just substitute your hand when no other surface was available). Although this amazing device is currently in a rather bulky prototype form, it will eventually become much smaller and more convenient to travel with (like virtually every other kind of technology). I could talk on and on about this amazing creation, but I will end for now by saying that this device will almost certainly become as ubiquitous in the future as cellphones are today. And of course, in an RBE, the device would be freely given to anyone who wants one, thus creating a new kind of digital global consciousness; one that permeates the real world, rather than sticking us all behind computer monitors.
33531
336I highly recommend that you search this device online, especially if you want a much better explanation of what it can do than the one I've given here (which really doesn't do it justice). (65,66)
337
338Some Final Thoughts
339
340A Resource Based Economy is a radical idea that is unlike anything that has ever been attempted in human history. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this new system is that by taking advantage of advanced technology, we would actually be restoring our former balance with nature. For the majority of human history, the human species lived in relative harmony with its environment. The environmental changes we imposed were gradual enough, and subtle enough, that we were not a major cause of environmental destruction. Instead, we were just another natural part of the ecosystem, like all of the other plants and animals. However, somewhere along the line this balance was lost. We became more concerned with things that did not exist in the physical world than things that did. Our concern turned to intangible constructs such as 'wealth', 'property' and 'politics', and we lost sight of the things that actually contribute to the health of our species, such as 'food', 'air' and 'water'. As our technology became more advanced, we suddenly found that we were able to harvest vast quantities of resources. But there was a price. The more powerful our technology became, the greater its negative impact on the environment became. It seems that this technology was actually not very advanced at all, but was really still quite primitive. Truly advanced technology would, logically speaking, be able to enhance the
341power of our species while simultaneously balancing this power with the impact we have on the environment. Our species has now reached a point where this kind of advancement is actually within our grasp. However, we continue to cling to our mostly primitive technologies, even though they are less powerful, less efficient, and less sustainable than more advanced alternatives. This is largely due to our refusal to let go of the intangible constructs which have now become more important to our species than the real world. If we are able to overcome this barrier to our progress, we might at last be able to reach a state in which we can balance the technological power of the modern age with the sustainability of our ancestors.
342Furthermore, by creating a society in which restrictive concepts such as 'government' and 'law' were no longer necessary, we would restore the natural freedom that we lost with the establishment of human 'civilization'. We would at last be able to create a society that was truly civilized; one where people do not have to be forced into acting a certain way through fear of punishment, but rather choose to act a certain way because it actually benefits them. A true civilization would be one in which people actually consider the impact of their actions, and give honest consideration to the state of the future. The last few decades of intense scientific progress have signalled the beginning of the end for our primitive way of life. The present day represents the final stage in the evolutionary jump from 'wild animals' to intelligent citizens of the planet. If we continue to hold onto our old ways, we are simply digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the grave that has been marked for our species. If we are able to let go of our evolutionary baggage, we will finally be able to have the best of both worlds: The power of technology, and the harmony and freedom of nature.
343But let's not get too excited yet. As you were reading this section, it's almost certain that you had a number of logical concerns regarding the RBE concept. Since this idea began to gain some popularity, it has been faced with a number of objections that question its feasibility. From the perspective of a scientific theory, this is perhaps the best thing that could possibly happen. No great
344idea can be complete unless it is thoroughly criticized, and is able to overcome its criticisms with sound logic. This is what I hope to accomplish in the following section. So let's get to it!
34532
346
347Section Two: Questions? Concerns?
348
349“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
350-Arthur Schopenhauer (1)
351We've spent some time talking about exactly how a Resource Based Economy might work, and we've discussed some of the positive changes it would be able to bring for our species. However, there are a number of potential issues that might be taken against the RBE concept. Many of these are objections that have popped up throughout the Internet in response to the RBE idea. Although some of them are quickly revealed to be 'knee-jerk' reactions based on superficial evaluations of the idea, many of them are honest, well thought out questions that need to be addressed. A few of them are questions that I have been asked personally while talking about the RBE idea in casual conversation. Before we begin talking about how we could go about testing an RBE, I'll attempt to answer as many of these queries and objections as I can think of. Here we go...
352
353“What if someone wants more than they need? For example, what if someone wants 150 pairs of shoes, or a 5000 square foot home all for themselves? Forget about human needs, aren't human wants infinite?”
354
355This is essentially a question of values, and addressing it requires us to answer 3 questions: Why do people value material things so much? What is so 'wrong' about wanting lots of 'things'? How do we change peoples' values so that this kind of dilemma doesn't come up in an RBE?
356The first question addresses the basic value set that defines life in a Capitalist society: Why do people love material things so much? Many people derive a huge amount of pleasure from buying things and owning things. There is a term that describes actions from which people derive massive amounts of pleasure, even if that action provides no physiological benefit: Addiction. An addiction is best characterized as a hijacking of the reward pathways in the brain, wherein someone experiences an action as being so rewarding that they are unable to stop performing it, even if it provides no benefit, or is actually harmful (2). On the one hand, the body derives pleasure from jogging because it increases physical fitness. People derive pleasure from spending time with friends and family because it fulfils our basic human need to socialize. On the other hand, some people derive massive pleasure from the
357act of shopping, even to the point of not being able to fully control themselves when on a shopping spree. This is in spite of the fact that this action (and almost always, the items being bought) have no real benefit for the mind or body. This is very much characteristic of an addiction. In this regard, a shopping mall is fundamentally identical to a crack-house; the only difference is that one is more socially acceptable to enter than the other. Furthermore, we often have a tendency to think that our worth as a human being is measured according the number and 'quality' of things we possess. In fact, from the day we are born, we are taught that this is the case. Whether it is through advertising, the various holidays which have been reduced to gift-buying orgies, or through the stress and trauma induced by this society (which encourages addictive behaviour (3)), we are constantly 'reminded' that we are only loved and respected based upon our ability to accumulate and display our material wealth.
358I myself have not been immune to this addiction. As a child and teenager, I was obsessed with various collections, which I protected as if they were my children. No matter how large any collection was, and no matter how much money I spent on them, it was never enough; I always wanted more. During my University days, I was well on my way to becoming a typical materialistic elitist, attempting
35933
360to display my 'social status' through expensive clothing and an attitude of superiority. Although I was eventually able to outgrow these addictions, many people never do outgrow them. Instead, they will continue to be trapped in a vicious cycle: Making a purchase, then experiencing great happiness for all of 5 minutes before their attention turns to the next thing they 'need' to buy. For people trapped in this cycle of fruitless purchasing, there is simply no such thing as 'enough'; a strong indicator of a powerful addiction. So, to answer the first question, why do people value material things so much? In short, we live in a society which actively builds in us an irrational addiction to material things, regardless of their usefulness.
361But is this really so bad? What exactly is so 'wrong' about our society's addiction to materials? From the perspective of our Capitalist economic system, this addiction is the best thing that could possibly happen. By ensuring that people have a constant need to buy and own more things, we are better able to sustain economic growth. However, from the perspective of real life, this addiction is seriously damaging on a personal, social, and environmental level. It is personally damaging, in that we experience a great deal of distress when we do not possess an object of our desire, regardless of it's usefulness (think back to all of the negative health effects of stress). A materialistic person will have a much more difficult time achieving lasting happiness, because there are always more things to accumulate; as soon as the thrill of obtaining the last item wears off, the happiness derived from it goes away too. The inability to achieve lasting happiness is seriously detrimental to one's overall health (4). The addiction is socially damaging, in that massive amounts of slave labour (mostly child slavery) in developing countries is required to feed our appetite for things here in the developed world. Even in an RBE, it would still be socially damaging, in that the resources spent feeding one person's addiction would mean that those resources cannot be used for something more objectively useful. In addition,
362one might expect to face some degree of social ostracism for using resources in such an irresponsible way, especially considering the relatively high amount of convenience and luxury that can be achieved while remaining sustainable. Lastly, the addiction is environmentally damaging, in that our insatiable need for things requires the expenditure of vast amounts of resources at a rate that is faster than what is sustainable. To make matters worse, high amounts of consumption also mean high amounts of waste, as indicated by the landfills and dumping sites that now cover much of the globe. So, why is our addiction to material things worth getting rid of? Simply put, it is a losing situation for almost everyone and everything on the planet.
363So, how would we avoid this addiction in an RBE? For individuals born into that society, the answer is quite simple: Without the societal pressures that build a materialistic addiction in us, there would be no reason for it to manifest. Remember, an RBE would have no advertising, no forces encouraging materialism, and would be a far less stressful and traumatic society. Furthermore, it would be a society in which people are educated to think about how their actions will affect society and the planet. Obviously, the mass accumulation of 'things' is not really of benefit to anyone. Basically, an RBE is an environment that fosters the opposite of materialism. It is an environment in which people are taught that every human life is worthwhile regardless of material possessions, people are educated to be more socially responsible, and positive contributions to society are what is valued.
364However, this still does not answer the question of how we actually go about changing the values of those people alive today. Unfortunately, like any addiction, the healing process cannot begin until the addict admits that they have a problem. Stop and think for a moment about the materialistic addiction as I described it above. Does this sound like your life? Might you be addicted to 'things'? Many people will probably deny this, citing excuses such as, “I like to shop because it relieves stress!”
365I should point out that feeding an addiction is often a great way to temporarily relieve stress (2). Others might say, “I need all of these things to live!” Objectively speaking, this is absolutely not true. Denial is very much characteristic of an addiction (5). And of course, the classic, “I earned all of these things,
36634
367who are you to tell me I'm wrong for wanting them?!” There may be some truth to this assertion, and I should stress once again that I am not here to pass judgement on what is 'right' or 'wrong'. But I would have to respond to this with 2 questions of my own: Even if you did 'earn' them (which, as we'll discuss soon, is not always the case), are all of these inanimate objects actually doing you any objective good? Also, is your material 'success' worth all of the negative personal, social, and environmental consequences? I cannot answer these questions for you, and I honestly don't expect anyone to completely change their values based on reading a few paragraphs in some book. However, what I do hope is that this will at least get people thinking more about the impact of their actions, and the benefits and drawbacks of their values. Sometimes, all it takes is the honest asking of a single question to completely change the course of a person's life.
368This is ultimately the single most difficult aspect of transitioning to an RBE; even if we have all of the technical aspects of this system described and planned out perfectly, we would still need for the whole of the planet to voluntarily change their values. Instead of our values being dominated by materialism and greed, we would need everyone to begin valuing sustainability and cooperation. How can we possibly hope to accomplish such a lofty goal? There are basically 3 major steps that need to be taken in order to this:
3691. We first need to convince people that the concept of an RBE is actually technically possible, and would improve our standard of living. This is the primary purpose of Section 1 and Section
3702, so we are already making progress on this front. By giving people a concrete idea of what
371this potential future would be like, we are much more likely to convince people that it would be worth pursuing. And, at the individual level, the pursuit of an RBE begins entirely with a
372change in one's values.
3732. The actual transition needs to be a gradual one. Despite the clear failings of Capitalism, we cannot expect that people will just suddenly decide to change everything that they value. Likewise, we cannot suddenly change our global society and expect that the process will go smoothly. In the same way that environmental changes need to occur at a rate which the surrounding plants and animals can keep up with, this massive shift in the way we live must occur at a rate which our species is comfortable with. We need to give our species adequate
374time to allow for the necessary shift in values to occur. That amount of time will be discussed in
375Section 3.
3763. We need a working example of a community based on the principles of an RBE. No matter how good this idea sounds in theory, we need to have a working example that actually shows people how much better their lives would be. In this way, we would actually inspire people to want to change themselves, rather than just telling them that change would be a 'good idea'. This would also have the benefit of greatly reducing the necessary transition time required for our society to adapt to this new idea; if people can see the benefit of this new value system, they would be much more likely to accept it, and want to change their own values. As you'll see in the next section, the creation of one or more example communities is a critical aspect of the proposed plan for testing this system.
377
378“-Insert economist here- has already proven that this idea cannot work.”
379
380This assertion is based on the work of early 20th century economists, and essentially takes the form of 2 problems: The Economic Calculation Problem, and specific critiques against information processing in a Centrally Planned Economy.
381The first problem goes something like this: An economic system without 'price' would not work,
38235
383because there would be no way to set a 'value' for goods and services. How then, could we possibly figure out a rational way to allocate them? This conundrum is called the Economic Calculation Problem, and at first glance, this logic actually seems quite sound. (6)
384However, this assertion makes the daring assumption that the Market actually allocates resources in a rational way; an assumption that is difficult to defend when one looks at the world that this method of distribution has created, where two identical articles of clothing can have wildly different prices just because one has a 'brand name' label on it, and a small portion of the population
385controls a huge percentage of the planet's resources. Whether such a method of distributing resources is
386'rational' is seriously questionable, but I won't linger on this question any longer for a very important reason: The ability to assign prices to goods and services loses any and all meaning in a post-scarcity economy.
387We can think of it in terms of the law of supply and demand (7). This economic rule dictates that as the supply of a good or service increases, the price for it must drop. Likewise, as demand for something decreases, the price for it drops as well. Therefore, if we could reach a point where the supply of something was vastly higher than the demand, the price would become so low that it would
388become indistinguishable from zero. This could be done in 2 ways: We could either reach a point where we are able to provide a much greater supply of goods and services than what is needed, or we could reduce the demand for them dramatically. In an RBE, both of these moves would be taken. By creating an environment that no longer precludes individuals to a materialistic addiction, there would be a massive drop in demand for essentially every kind of commodity. By taking advantage of automation, and largely removing the need for human labour, the supply of goods and services would be able to vastly surpass the demand. What is the point in charging money for shelter or food when there is more than enough of either to satisfy the demand of every individual in that society? Why charge money for access to goods when they are so abundantly available for access? If the 'price' of everything in a
389society was essentially zero, there would be no longer be any logical way to distribute goods and services based on the price mechanism. Without the ability to assign a 'value' to anything, there would no longer be any reason to maintain a currency of any kind. This is why 'price' would not be used in an RBE. It would simply serve no rational purpose.
390But if we cannot make use of the price mechanism, then how do we figure out a way to allocate resources? The traditional alternative to a Market based system is a Centrally Planned system; one in which a group of people decide how the economy will be run for their entire population. However, this kind of system has been criticized because of issues relating to information: How do the planners receive the necessary information to make informed decisions? How can something as complicated as an economy be comprehensively 'planned' by one group? Won't there always be an informational disconnect that exists between the population and the planners? It becomes quickly apparent that a Centrally Planned economy is not a very plausible alternative to the Market system. (8)
391However, we overcome the limitations of Central Planning in an RBE by making use of the survey system, in which planning is not centralized; it is actually dispersed throughout the entire population. By having economic decisions made at the level of each individual, we greatly reduce the complexity that the 'planners' (the members of the population) have to deal with. Each person has access to the information necessary to make their own economic decisions (the person's own
392consumption habits). This information is then sent to and processed by the Global Databases, which are themselves distributed networks. Since the population has already done much of the work of 'planning', the Databases are responsible simply for execution of the plan; a purely algorithmic task based on rules of priority (as we discussed in the previous section), which is precisely what computers excel at. A system in which the population is in direct control of their economic lives has been called a Participatory Economy (or Parecon, for short). This kind of system offers an alternative to the Market
39336
394system, while overcoming the informational disconnect that plagues a Centrally Planned system. (9) Logically speaking, it is only because of the invention of the Internet that this kind of system is
395even possible; an invention which would have been difficult for the economists of the early 20th century to predict.
396What we ultimately need to keep in mind is that the basis of every school of traditional economic thinking is scarcity - the idea that there is 'not enough for everyone' - and the dramatic effects this reality has on human behaviour. This concept is the foundation on which all of the economic systems of past and present are built. Scarcity is as fundamental to traditional economic thinking as the value of pi is to geometry. Traditional economic thinking, therefore, has little or no validity in analyzing a post-scarcity economy. It would be like trying to do geometry in a world where the value of pi is 'banana-suitcase'; even the most basic of assumptions no longer holds true. Does this mean that we shouldn't try and evaluate this system at all? Of course not. What it means, is that we
397need to get some concrete data regarding this system before we simply begin condemning it, especially based on thinking that is not even applicable to its function. As of right now, the RBE idea rests entirely on theory. The theory seems to be strongly in favour of an RBE's success, but a good theory is one that can stand up to experiment. This is why it is so important for us to test this idea (as we'll discuss further in the next section); we have no prior data to base assumptions on.
398Rather than evaluate an RBE using the very boxed-in and closed-minded worldview of traditional economics, this could actually result in the establishment of a completely new field of study. This field could be called 'post-scarcity economics'. In this method of thought, we would need to break free from always analyzing things in terms of 'price'. We would have to lose our basic assumption of scarcity, and all of the effects that scarcity has on the way humans behave and interact (that humans are
399'naturally' violent and greedy). It would require us to begin analyzing things simply as they are, with no prior bias towards the system which currently rules the globe. The simple fact is that a post-scarcity economy has never before existed in human history, and we need to recognize how strange and alien this type of system would seem from the perspective of traditional economic thinking. Unless we are willing to examine this system from a much wider perspective, it will be impossible for us to make any accurate evaluations as to its function.
400
401“The ability to own private property is a fundamental human right.”
402
403In a certain sense, I actually agree with this statement. I think every human has the right to safely possess the things they need to survive, without fear of these things being damaged or taken away by someone else. However, this is not necessarily the same as private property. 'Private property' is a means to secure access to resources when resources are scarce. That is, by claiming an object or resource as my 'property', I can access it at will and prevent others from accessing it without my permission. But this entire enterprise becomes largely pointless once we overcome scarcity. There is no longer any reason for me to hoard resources in order to secure access when everything I need access to is abundantly available. In essence, the right to own 'private property' is superseded by a much more fundamental right: Every person has the right to have their needs met without worry. By providing abundant access to all of the necessities of life, there would be no need, or logical reason, for anyone to
404desire or steal your personal goods in an RBE. Just because there are no 'laws' specific to the concept of property, that does not mean that people would not still respect the goods being used by another person. After all, everyone else has everything they need to survive, so there would be no reason for them to want to take anything of 'yours'. By creating this kind of environment, we ensure that the right to have one's needs met is always respected.
405That being said, the assertion of private property as a fundamental human right within the
40637
407Capitalist system is seriously flawed. If 'property' is a universal human right, why are there so many people in the world who don't own a single thing to their name? Why do so many people have their property forcibly taken away from them if they cannot afford to pay for it? Clearly, our Capitalist system does not treat property as a right at all; we treat it as a privilege. If you are fortunate enough to possess enough fancy pieces of paper to secure your property, your rights will be respected. If you lack these pieces of paper, you suddenly lose any and all rights you supposedly possessed. Some might argue that the ability to possess money has 'earned' them the right to that property. However, a fundamental human right is, by definition, not something that needs to be 'earned'; it is owed to all humans by default. That's why it's called a fundamental human right. As for the notion that money represents the 'work' that someone does, well...
408“Money is not a meaningless construct. It represents the amount of work a person has done, how much effort they have expended, or how difficult their life is.”
409This claim is one of many largely false claims about Capitalism which are obscured by
410glimmers of truth; the idea that someone with more money 'worked harder', or has had a more 'difficult' life than someone with less money. Admittedly, there are numerous cases where this assumption holds true. Many business owners begin with a small amount of capital, and are able to vastly increase their wealth over time through hard work and dedication. This claim probably also holds true when we are looking at very small income brackets. For example, if you were to compare your life with everyone around you whose annual income is within 5-10 thousand dollars a year of your own, it actually makes sense that those who put in more effort would have more money that those who expended less effort.
411However, as soon as we begin to extrapolate this concept across wider income levels, it immediately falls apart. For example, a construction worker performing 12 hours of back-breaking labour for 5 days a week will likely make a fraction of the money made by a manager at that company who never has to put in more than 40 hours a week. Of course, you might argue that the manager exerts more 'mental effort' than the construction worker. However, even in terms of mental effort, the link between money and effort is still difficult to prove. A hardworking CEO with an advanced education will have a salary this is literally hundreds of times greater than a hardworking scientist with an advanced education, even if both individuals are working essentially around the clock. You might argue that the scientist is not under as much pressure as the CEO, who maintains a company that must be accountable to hundreds of thousands of workers and shareholders (even if said scientist is attempting
412to solve a societal problem that affects the lives of a billion people). However, if being under pressure should equate to higher pay, then why does the average CEO in America make more than twice as much money as the President of the United States (10,11)? Does running a large company really entail more mental strain than running a country with a population of over 300 million?
413And of course, we haven't even touched on the ludicrous paychecks of professional athletes and entertainers. Granted, many athletes spend long hours training and preparing for their chosen sport. However, the level of pay an athlete receive varies wildly depending on which sport they're playing and where it is being played; often factors completely independent of how much 'effort' is being expended. As for the pay of Hollywood actors, does the craft of acting require so much effort that they must be rewarded millions of dollars? If so, then why are there so many struggling actors who work just as
414hard, but might never see enough money to make a living from their craft? The entertainment industry as a whole is an excellent example of how the link between money and effort is shaky, at best. Why do some recording artists rake in millions of dollars from their music, while other artists who work just as hard will not even make enough money to pay their rent? The reason for this mostly falls on things like
415'marketing' and 'popularity', but neither of these are necessarily reflective of the effort expended by the
41638
417artists themselves. You might then argue that it is a question of skill; the people who make the most money are simply more skilled at their craft than others. If this were the case, then why is 'pop' the most profitable type of music, despite being notorious for the lack of skill required to create it?
418If you are still not convinced of the questionable link between money and effort, there is still one last case that displays this fallacy more than any other case: being born into wealth. There are vast numbers of people who are simply born into wealthy families, never expending any substantial amount of effort in order to 'earn' their affluence. They grow up with every advantage required for them to retain their affluence into adulthood, completely independent of how much 'effort' they expend in
419comparison to their less fortunate counterparts. Indeed, I would say that this category contains the most numerous examples of the shaky link between money and the difficulty of one's life.
420Ultimately, unless we are measuring and comparing the amount of calories burned per hour between two individuals with different jobs, the entire notion of 'effort' is largely subjective. There are instances in which the link between effort and money is very clear, instances where it is difficult to discern, and instances in which it is completely non-existent. That last case is perhaps best seen when we examine the relationship on a global scale, comparing the very richest people in the world to the very poorest. The idea that the wealthiest people in the world work harder, and have more difficult lives than the highly impoverished is pretty laughable. In fact, I hereby state an open challenge to the CEO
421of any Fortune 500 company who wants to prove me wrong: Go to an impoverished African village with an interpreter, walk up to a malnourished child, and deliver the following communication to them: “The reason I am one of the richest people in the world and you are struggling to meet your most basic needs is because my life is so much harder than yours”. I think the sheer ridiculousness of that last statement pretty much sums up my whole argument.
422While reading my response to this particular query, you might think that I'm simply being bitter towards a class of people who live a lifestyle that I envy. If that is the case, then allow me to tell you a little bit more about myself. I am one of the aforementioned people who was born into above-average wealth. I consumed far more than I needed, all while expending hardly any 'effort' of my own. During my short adulthood, I spent some time living a life of material wealth and affluence, and I learned firsthand just how empty and meaningless this lifestyle is. Most importantly, I have witnessed the ugly side of this kind of life. When I said that a materialistic person can never achieve lasting happiness, I wasn't just guessing; I was speaking from experience and direct observation.
423It is commonly thought that anyone who complains about Capitalism is doing so because they have been a victim of it. However, I am not a victim of this system. I come from the part of society that is doing the victimizing. I have personally lived the kind of lifestyle which I am now speaking out against; the kind of lifestyle that is signing the death warrant for our species. Capitalism may have been very kind to me, but I cannot overlook the fact that it has been nothing but cruel to majority of the world, and completely ineffective at managing society.
424
425“What about people who don't want to join with this new society?”